/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071116.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 16, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 228 Headlines AMERICAN EQUITY: Faces Suits Alleging Improper Sales Practices BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Nev. Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement BASIC RESEARCH: Sued in Calif. Over “Akavar” Diet Supplement BASSETTBABY: Recalls Cribs with Bolts that can Come Loose BEAR STEARNS: Objects to Navigator Capital's Remand Request BIG 5: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Store Managers' Litigation BRUSH WELLMAN: Suit Over Beryllium Hazard Allowed to Proceed CAREMARK INC: Granted Summary Judgment in “Morrell” ERISA Suit COAST FINANCIAL: Response to Amended Securities Suit Due Dec. 3 COBY ELECTRONICS: Recalls DVD/CD/MP3 Players that can Overheat COMCAST INC: Accused of Blocking Customers' Internet Services COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Yet to be Determined in Uninsured's Suit COMMUNITY HEALTH: Nixing of Ill. “Rix” Uninsured Suit Appealed COMMUNITY HEALTH: “Chronister” Uninsured's Suit in Discovery COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Cal. Suit Claims “Bait and Switch” Scheme COVAD COMMS: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Blackberry Merger COVAD COMMS: Settles Breach of Fiduciary Suit by Former Counsel DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Under Appeal DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits DIGIMARC CORP: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected in 2008 GAP INC: Faces Suit Over Theft of Job Applicants' Personal Info MULTIPLEX GROUP: ASIC Told to Hand over Investigation Documents NEBRASKA: Black Workers Pay More for Health Insurance, Suit Says SAN DIEGO GAS: Accused of Negligence in Witch Creek Wildfire SOLUTIA INC: “Reiff” ERISA Suit Defendants Seek Case Dismissal TIGER BRANDS: Could Face South African Lawsuit Over Price-Fixing WAL-MART STORES: “Hummel” Plaintiffs Win Additional Award Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Removal Expense for Cleco Unit at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 1,993 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Records $637M Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Cos. Faces 102,663 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has N.J. Coverage Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $30.8M Charge at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.34B for Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Faces More Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Litigation Ongoing v. SCC Affiliates ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp.'s Liability Remains at $18.7M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Has 177 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Suit v. 2 Reynolds Units Still Stayed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Awaits Ruling in Cooper Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 180 Lawsuits Still Pending v. Pepco in Md. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Tech. Faces 26 Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Cleared in Miss. Cases, 5 Ill. Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Suits in Miss. Ongoing v. GlobalSantaFe ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Unit Pursues Insurance Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Units Record 1,303 Suits at Oct. 29 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Still Has Pending Exposure Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Faces 25,000 Claims in Six States ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Has Unresolved Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Garcia Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Expenses Total $11.5Mil at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Still Has 106,500 Open Cases at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Settlement Commitments Total $64M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $393M Reserve for Future Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Liability Totals $516.7M at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Losses & ALAE Total $320.7M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelly-Moore Coverage Action Ongoing v. Crum ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. ConEd, Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $19Mil Costs for N.Y. Incident ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tube City IMS Has Claims from Old Ventures ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Cites $2.6M Removal Costs ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int’l. Units Still Face Miss. Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Lawsuits v. Mine Safety Rise to 260 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety in Dispute w/ Century Indemnity ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Continues to Face Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Records $7M for Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Houston Wire ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Settlement Looming After ASARCO Mediation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Mt. McKinley, Everest Proceeds ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling v. Ford, Merck ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jambon Action v. Northrop Grumman Remanded ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Able UK Holdings to Pay GBP22T for Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liverpool Pays Over GBP250,000 in 18 Months ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Aftermath of London Fire ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wyo. Farmer Sues 98 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Reconsider Dana Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Covers Asbestos at Ill. Dairy Farm Site ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More Asbestos Suits Filed v. Cayuga County ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Files Class Action Lawsuit v. County New Securities Fraud Cases BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit FUWEI FILMS: Weiss & Lurie Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. WSB FINANCIAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit WYETH INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ********* AMERICAN EQUITY: Faces Suits Alleging Improper Sales Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. faces several purported class actions alleging improper sales practices, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Companies in the life insurance and annuity business have faced litigation, including class actions, alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and similar claims. The company is currently a defendant in several purported class actions alleging improper sales practices. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs are seeking returns of premiums and other compensatory and punitive damages. Des Moines, Iowa-based American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. -- http://www.american-equity.com-- develops, markets, issues and administers annuities and life insurance. BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Nev. Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada gave final approval to a settlement of a consolidated federal securities class action filed in 2004 against Bally Technologies, Inc., f/k/a Alliance Gaming Corp., and certain current and former officers. In June and July 2004, putative class actions were filed against the Company and its officers, Robert Miodunski, Robert Saxton, Mark Lerner and Steven Des Champs, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The nearly identical complaints alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, stemming from revised earnings guidance, declines in the stock price and sales of stock by insiders. The complaints sought damages in unspecified amounts. The Federal District Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead counsel and a lead plaintiff, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, all as is customary in such cases. The Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Thereafter, activity in the case was stopped and the parties participated in a mediation process during which the parties agreed on the terms of a settlement. The parties negotiated and executed settlement documents settling the consolidated class action. Under the settlement, an aggregate of $16.0 million in cash, plus certain interest, was paid to settle the securities class action as well as a derivative litigation. The Company accrued $1.25 million related to the settlement during the year ended June 30, 2006, which was paid in late February 2007. In addition to certain governance actions the Company agreed to undertake in connection with the settlement, the Company's directors and officers insurer contributed approximately $14.75 million to the settlement. The court approved the settlement on Aug. 9, 2007, ending the case, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. The suit is “In Re: Alliance Gaming Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-821,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Kent J. Dawson. Representing the plaintiffs are: Beckley Singleton, Chtd. 530 Las Vegas Boulevard South Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702.385.3373 Fax: 702.385.9447 E-mail: info@beckleylaw.com - and - Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.231.1058 Fax: 619.231.7423 BASIC RESEARCH: Sued in Calif. Over “Akavar” Diet Supplement ------------------------------------------------------------ Basic Research LLC and Dynakor Pharmacal are facing a class- action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division alleging it defrauded consumers by pushing "Akavar" diet supplement as a "foolproof" way to lose weight without dieting or exercise, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Defendants Dennis Gay, Mitchell K. Friedlander and Daniel B. Mowrey Ph.D are violating a permanent FTC injunction by running the scam, and fraudulently represent Mowrey as a medical doctor, which he is not, the complaint states. The company's affiliate, Western Holdings LLC, of Cheyenne, Wyo., is also a defendant. Named plaintiffs Pamela Miller, Randy Howard and Donna Patterson bring this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased, not for resale or assignment, an Akavar 20/50 Fast Acting Caloric Restricting Compound. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants engaged in a pattern of fraudulent, deceptive and misleading conduct toward the public through their marketing, advertising, promotion and sale of Akavar; (b) whether defendants misrepresented the efficacy of Akavar to consumers' financial detriment; (c) whether the acts and omissions of defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq.; (d) whether the acts and omissions of defendants violated Section 76-10-1603(3) and (4) of UPUAA, Utah Code Ann. Section 76-10(3) and (4); (e) whether defendants should be enjoined from the continued unlawful marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and sale of Akavar; (f) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by their acts and omissions, at the expense of plaintiffs and the class; (g) whether defendants made material misrepresentations of fact, or omitted to state material facts to plaintiffs and the class regarding the marketing, promotion and advertising of Akavar, which material misrepresentations or omissions operated as fraud and deceit upon plaintiffs and the class; (h) whether plaintiffs and the class have sustained damages and loss as a result of defendants' actions; and (i) whether the actions of defendants were willful and malicious, or manifested knowing and reckless indifference and disregard toward the rights of plaintiffs and the class; Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: -- an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying plaintiffs as the representatives of the class, and designating their counsel as counsel for the class; -- on the first cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally in an amount equal to treble the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest and attorneys' fees and expenses; -- on the second cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally in an amount equal to treble the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest and attorneys' fees and expenses; -- on the third cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally in an amount to two times the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest and attorneys' fees and expenses; -- on the fourth cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally in an amount equal to two times the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest and attorneys' fees and expenses; -- on the fifth cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally, in an amount equal to the actual damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest, as well as punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish defendants and deter similar future conduct; -- on the sixth cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally, in an amount equal to the actual damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest, together with all allowable penalties and damage multipliers available under the UCSPA and other state consumer protection laws, and attorneys' fees and expenses; -- on the seventh cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally, for disgorgement of defendants' unjust enrichment and/or imposition of a constructive trust upon defendants' ill-gotten monies, freezing defendants' assets, and requiring defendants to pay restitution to plaintiffs and the class and to restore all funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared by the court to be unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent or unfair, and/or violation of laws, statutes or regulations; -- on all causes of action, such other civil penalties and punitive damages to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law; -- an order requiring defendants to immediately cease their wrongful conduct as set forth, as well as enjoining defendants from continuing to falsely market and advertise, conceal material information and conduct business via the unlawful and unfair business acts and practices complained of; an order requiring defendants to engage in a corrective notice campaign; and an order requiring defendants to refund to plaintiffs and all members of the class the funds paid to defendants for their fraudulent, defective product; -- for the reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of prosecuting this action; -- for statutory pre-judgment interest; and -- for such relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Pamela Miller et al. v. Basic Research LLC et al. Case No. 2:07-CV-00871-TS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. Representing plaintiffs is: Jan Graham 150 South 600 East, Suite 5B Ambassador Plaza Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Phone: (801) 596-9199 Fax: (801) 596-9299 E-mail: jan@grahamlawoffices.com BASSETTBABY: Recalls Cribs with Bolts that can Come Loose --------------------------------------------------------- Bassettbaby, of Bassett, Va., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,900 Wendy Bellissimo Collection Convertible Cribs. The company said the bolts connecting the top corners of the crib can come loose, creating a gap and posing a serious entrapment and strangulation hazard. Bassettbaby has 85 reports of bolts loosening, including one report of a 13 month-old child's hand becoming entrapped between the railings. This recall involves Wendy Bellissimo Collection convertible cribs, model numbers 5945-0521 and 5545-0521, sold in honey and cherry finishes. The full size cribs have a sleigh design and one of the following purchase order numbers at the bottom rail of the headboard: 272903, 272904, 273904, 276728, 276729, 291081, 323975, 324472, 320318, 323976, 332883 365620, 368466 in honey, and 338535, 338537 and 332884 in cherry. All other Wendy Bellissimo Collection cribs are not involved in this recall. The cribs were made by Goodbaby Child Products Company Ltd., of China. They were sold at Babies R Us stores nationwide from July 2005 through October 2007 for about $500. Consumers are advised to should stop using these cribs immediately and contact Bassettbaby for a free repair kit. For additional information, contact Bassettbaby at (888) 897-4689 between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET daily, or visit http://www.bassettbaby.com. BEAR STEARNS: Objects to Navigator Capital's Remand Request ----------------------------------------------------------- Bear Stearns Asset Management, Bear, Stearns Securities Corp., The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., Ralph Cioffi, Raymond McGarrigal, and Matthew Tannin, and Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies, L.P., as nominal defendant, insist that a class action complaint filed by Navigator Capital Partners, L.P., is precisely the sort of litigation that belongs in federal court. Representing the Bear Stearns Entities, Peter K. Vigeland, Esq., at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, in New York, points out that Navigator's Complaint: (a) seeks to define the rights of citizens from more than 20 states and alleges fraud in connection with the trading of hundreds of millions of dollars in securities; (b) involves purchases and sales of securities on national markets as well as transactions with national and international financial institution; and (c) involves not only traditional equities, but an array of novel and complex financial products, most notably, tranches of mortgage-backed securities, including many hedging products and indices that are still evolving as ways to manage the risks of structured finance securities. Mr. Vigeland asserts that decisions made in the Navigator Litigation about liability and disclosure requirements may have substantial effects on the market for all of the products and on decisions that fund managers will make about whether to employ them at all. In addition, the sums at issue in the Complaint are of far more than local concern. The U.S. Congress, when it enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Acts of 1998 and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, recognized that cases like that asserted by Navigator belong in federal court. Case Background Navigator Capital Partners, L.P. on behalf of itself and a class consisting of all investors who held interests in Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies, L.P. at any time during the period August 1, 2006, through July 18, 2007, filed a class and derivative action against Bear Stearns entities. Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies, L.P., was organized under the laws of the state of Delaware on August 26, 2003. It commenced operations on October 1, 2003, and offered to sell Interests by way of offering document entitled "Confidential Private Placement Memorandum," dated August 31, 2004. Additional Interests were offered by way of a Confidential Private Placement Memorandum issued in August 2006. The primary objective of the Partnership was "to seek high current income and capital appreciation relative to LIBOR primarily through leveraged investments in investment-grade structured finance securities with an emphasis on triple-A and double-A rated structured finance securities," Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq., at Entistle & Cappucci, LLP, in New York, relates. Bear Stearns Asset Management, Inc., the general partner, invested the Partnership's funds into collateralized debt obligations backed by sub-prime mortgages. During the United States' recent housing boom, which occurred from late 2001 until mid-2006, CDOs backed by sub-prime loans became very common investments and generated high rates of return. However, beginning at least as early as August 1, 2006, as home prices leveled off and decline in parts of the country, more borrowers have fallen behind on their mortgage payments. This event has led to a decrease in the value of CDOs backed by those mortgage loans. Despite the deteriorating market conditions, Ralph Cioffi, Raymond McGarrigal and Matthew Tanin, managing directors of BSAM, continued to invest the Partnership's money in risky sub- prime mortgage-backed securities, while at the same time failing to implement hedging and other strategies to minimize risk effectively, Mr. Cappucci alleges. The Partnership invested substantially all of its assets through the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd., through a "master-feeder" arrangement. The Master Fund was formed under Cayman Islands law and commenced operations on September 12, 2003. As of December 31, 2006, the Partnership's beneficial ownership of the Master Fund's assets was 28.58%. In a report to investors for the month ended February 28, 2007, BSAM stated that the Partnership had returned an estimated 0.08%. For March 2007, the Fund returned an estimated 3.71%. As of April 30, 2007, the Fund returned an estimated 6.24%. However, on July 18, 2007, Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., parent of BSAM, informed investors that there was very little value left for the investors in the High-Grade Fund as of June 30, 2007, and that the High-Grade Fund will seek an orderly wind- down of the Funds over time. In this regard, Navigator Capital Partners, L.P., on behalf of itself and a class consisting of all investors who held Interests in the Partnership at any time during the period August 1, 2006, through July 18, 2007, filed a class and derivative action against: * the Partnership, * the Management, * Bear Stearns Companies, * Bear, Stearns Securities Corporation and * Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., in the U.S. Supreme Court in the state of New York, county of New York. Mr. Cappucci says Navigator invested more than $700,000 in the Partnership from August 25, 2004, through April 13, 2005. From January 1, 2007, through April 1, 2007, Navigator contributed $14,250,000 to the Partnership and withdrew $9,200,289. Navigator asserts a class and derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Management under Delaware law. Mr. Cappucci notes that under Delaware law, the Management owed to Navigator and the Class the highest obligation to due care, good faith, candor, loyalty and fair dealing. But notwithstanding the Management's obligation to adequately assess, monitor and hedge the credit risks of investment held by the Partnership, and their admitted ability to do so, they Management failed to do so, in breach of their fiduciary duties under Delaware law. In addition, the Management systematically and continuously failed to disclose to investors that they: (a) were not sufficiently monitoring and adequately assessing the credit risk inherent in the Partnership's investments; (b) were not determining the frequency and severity of defaults of the assets of each of the structured finance securities invested in by the Partnership; (c) were not developing and implementing credit enhancement mechanisms, which could cause cash flow to be diverted away from the Partnership's riskier investments under certain market conditions; and (d) were not otherwise adequately engaging in hedging techniques to maximize risk. Had the Management disclosed these facts, Mr. Cappucci says the investors would have taken steps to avoid the massive losses they suffered, like withdraw their funds from the Partnership, remove BSAM as General Partner, institute their own hedges and bring a lawsuit before the value of their investments plummeted. The Class has suffered damages caused by the Management's breaches of fiduciary duties and thus the Management are liable to pay the Class damages in an amount to be proven at trial, Mr. Cappucci asserts. Navigator also asserts a class and derivative claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Bear Stearns Companies, Bear Stearns Securities and BS&Co. under Delaware law. Mr. Cappucci asserts that these companies knowingly participated in the Management's breaches of fiduciary duties. Mr. Cappucci relates that the Partnership's daily mark-to-market was done in-house by Bear Stearns Companies' repo desk and the portfolio management team, which admittedly kept in touch with any price movements that could foretell problems in any one of the Fund's investments. Bear Stearns Companies' risk management department monitored the Fund's positions and things like as minimum rating requirements, overall and net leverage and any portfolio concentrations, and BSC's global credit department would meet with the portfolio management team to discuss their positions, risk management and hedging techniques. Mr. Cappucci further asserts that Bear Stearns Securities knowingly participated in the Management's breach of fiduciary duties in its role as custodian and prime broker to the Partnership and the High-Grade Fund. Moreover, the Class asserts a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Management under Delaware law Navigator asks the New York Supreme Court to: (a) declare that its action is a proper derivative and class action; (b) declare that it be the representative of the Class (c) declare that Management and each of them have violated their fiduciary duties to the Partnership and to the Investors; (d) declare that Bear Stearns Companies, Bear Stearns Securities and BS&Co. aided and abetted the Management's breaches of fiduciary duties; (e) direct Defendants, joint and severally, to accoun to the Investors for all damages suffered or to be suffered by them or by the Partnership as a result of the Defendants' actions; (f) award it, the Class and the Partnership damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including judgment interest; and (g) award it the costs and disbursements of the action, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. (Bear Stearns Funds Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 10; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000. BIG 5: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Store Managers' Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. settled a purported class action filed in California Superior Court in the County of Orange over alleged violations of California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint, “Jack Lima v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp., et al., Case No. 06CC00243,” was served on the company on Dec. 1, 2006. It was brought as a purported class action on behalf of the company's California store managers. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the company improperly classified store managers as exempt employees not entitled to overtime pay for work in excess of forty hours per week and failed to provide store managers with paid meal and rest periods. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, back pay for overtime allegedly not paid, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties including an additional thirty days' wages for each employee whose employment terminated in the four years preceding the filing of the complaint, an award of attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief to require the company to treat store managers as non-exempt. Subsequent to the third quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company and the plaintiff reached a confidential agreement providing for the full and complete settlement and release of all of the plaintiff’s individual claims and a dismissal of all claims purportedly brought on behalf of the class members in exchange for the Company’s payment of non-material amounts to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/ -- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 343 stores in 10 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec. 31, 2006. BRUSH WELLMAN: Suit Over Beryllium Hazard Allowed to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ A court has allowed a third-party complaint to proceed against Brush Wellman, Inc., in relation to the hazards of beryllium- containing products. “Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. d/b/a Small Tube Products Corp., Inc., et al., Case No. 000525” is a purported class action that Brush Wellman, Inc. faces in relation to beryllium. It was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on Sept. 7, 2006. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Case No. 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4, 2006. The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony. The defendants are: -- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., d/b/a Small Tube Products Corp., Inc.; -- Admiral Metals Inc.; -- Tube Methods, Inc.; and -- Cabot Corp. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville, Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge. The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence. Plaintiff seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and expenses. Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006. Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for indemnification and contribution. The company moved to dismiss the Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006. On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended third-party complaint, which Brush moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007. However, the Court denied the motion on Sept. 28, 2007, according to Brush Engineered Materials Inc.'s Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 28, 2007. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/-- is the parent of Brush Wellman, Inc. Brush Engineered through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered materials serving the global telecommunications, computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets. CAREMARK INC: Granted Summary Judgment in “Morrell” ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled in favor of Caremark in a class action accusing the company of breach of fiduciary duties under 29 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In July 2004, Caremark Rx and Caremark were served with a putative private class action filed by Robert Moeckel, purportedly on behalf of the John Morrell Employee Benefits Plan. The suit alleged defendants each acting as a fiduciary breached certain purported fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiff was a participant in and beneficiary of the John Morrell Employee Benefits Plan (JM Plan), a prescription drug plan funded by contributions by the plan sponsors as well as co- insurance, deductibles, copayments, and other contributions made by the plaintiff and other plan participants and beneficiaries. John Morrell Plan’s prescription drug benefits were administered by defendant Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM). According to the plaintiff, Caremark’s provision of PBM services pursuant to its contracts with Morrell & Co. rendered Caremark a fiduciary under ERISA. More specifically, Moeckel claims that Caremark exercised discretion or control over the pricing of prescription drugs through its control over the terms of its contracts with its network of retail pharmacies (which control the reimbursement rates for retail drugs) and with drug manufacturers (which control the actual cost of drugs dispensed through Caremark’s mail order pharmacies). The plaintiff alleges that Caremark manipulated the terms of its undisclosed contracts by creating hidden “pricing spreads” that yielded significant revenue to Caremark that it failed to pass through to the plans. By failing to disclose to the plans the discounted price it paid for drugs purchased by the plans’ participants and beneficiaries at retail pharmacies, Caremark allegedly was able to conceal from the plans the fact that Caremark secretly exercised its discretion to create a “spread” between the discounted price that Caremark paid retail pharmacies and the discounted price that Caremark contracted to be reimbursed by the plans, a “spread” it retained. Similarly, by buying drugs from drug manufacturers to stock mail order pharmacies, through which Caremark sold prescriptions to participants and beneficiaries, Caremark allegedly arranged significant discounts on those drugs but created a “spread” (which it retained) between the prices that Caremark agreed to pay the manufacturers and the prices that Caremark contracted to be reimbursed by the plans. Mr. Moeckel also contends that Caremark contracted with drug manufacturers in ways that enriched Caremark to the detriment of the plans. Plaintiff alleges that Caremark was delegated discretionary control and authority to decide which manufacturers’ drugs would be included in its formularies, including which would be included in its standardized formulary, which drugs on the formularies would be “preferred,” and which relative cost indicators would be placed next to each included drug. The plaintiff also alleges that Caremark was delegated discretionary authority and control to create “formulary compliance programs,” or drug-switching programs, which enabled Caremark to switch plan participants and beneficiaries from higher-cost therapeutically equivalent drugs to lower-cost therapeutically equivalent drugs. The plaintiff alleges that Caremark used the market power it gained from this level of control to enrich itself at the expense of the plans, by negotiating with manufacturers to favor more expensive therapeutically equivalent drugs, which increased the plans’ costs, in exchange for monies which Caremark retains and did not pass on to the plans. Having negotiated with a plan or a plan’s sponsor to share some of the rebates or other compensation, the plaintiff alleges that Caremark also engaged in self-dealing by characterizing (and sometimes intentionally mischaracterizing) payments, credits, or other compensation in ways to maximize its own profit at the expense of the plans. Mr. Moeckel also alleges that Caremark generated and retained interest on the “float” prior to disbursement of any rebates to the plans. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Caremark violated its fiduciary duties by secretly and subversively conspiring with drug manufacturers to inflate the average wholesale price of prescription drugs, thereby evading the “best pricing” statute, the Omnibus Budge and Reconciliation Act. In granting the company summary judgment, Judge Trauger ruled that Caremark’s actions fell “outside ERISA’s regulatory framework.” Further, she pointed out that those actions “relate to the basic administration of Caremark’s own business, which is non-fiduciary in nature.” The suit is "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00633," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Rebecca Cothran Blair and John A. Day of Branham & Day, P.C., 5300 Maryland Way, Suite 300, Brentwood, TN 37027, Phone: (615) 742-4880, E-mail: rblair@branhamday.com and jday@branhamday.com; and (2) Mike Miller of Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon, 1129 Fifth Avenue South, P.O. Box 1897, Fargo, ND 58107- 1897, Phone: (701) 237-3166, E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Paul Savage Davidson, Joseph A. Woodruff and Jennifer L. Weaver of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, Nashville City Center, 511 Union Street, Suite 2100, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone: (615) 244-6380, Fax: (615) 244-6380 E- mail: pdavidson@wallerlaw.com, joseph.woodruff@wallerlaw.com and jennifer.weaver@wallerlaw.com; and (ii) Frank E. Pasquesi of Ungaretti & Harris, 3500 Three First National Plaza, Chicago, IL 60602-4283, Phone: (312) 977-4400. COAST FINANCIAL: Response to Amended Securities Suit Due Dec. 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- The remaining defendants in a consolidated securities suit pending against Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has until Dec. 3 to respond to an Amended Complaint. Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., and certain of its present and former officers face a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Initially, defendants were named in three purported class action complaints, the first of which was filed with the Court on March 20, 2007. On June 22, 2007, the Court entered an order pursuant to which the Court: -- consolidated the Securities Actions, with the matter proceeding under the docket for “Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania v. Brian P. Peters, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-429-T-26-EAJ,” and -- appointed Troy Ratcliff and Daniel Altenburg as lead plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Subsequently, on or about August 24, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The Amended Complaint added as defendants -- the current members of the Holding Company's Board of Directors, -- one former member of the Holding Company's Board of Directors, -- the underwriters of the Holding Company's Oct. 5, 2005 public offering of common stock, and -- the Holding Company's external auditors. The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Holding Company's common stock between Jan. 21, 2005 and Jan. 22, 2007. In general, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Holding Company's SEC filings and public statements contained misstatements and omissions regarding its residential construction-to-permanent lending operations and, more specifically, regarding CCI and its affiliates and that the Holding Company's financial statements violated GAAP. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under. On Aug. 30, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice with the Court voluntarily dismissing their claims against Anne V. Lee and Justin D. Locke without prejudice. The remaining defendants are due to respond to the Amended Complaint on or before Dec. 3, 2007, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00479,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Richard A. Lazzara. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.231.1058 Fax: 619.231.7423 Saxena White PA 2424 North Federal Highway. Suite 307 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 800.361.5096 Fax: 888.782.3081 Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com - and - Vianale & Vianale LLP The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road. Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: 561.391.4900 Fax: 561.368.9274 E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com COBY ELECTRONICS: Recalls DVD/CD/MP3 Players that can Overheat ------------------------------------------------------------- Coby Electronics Corp., of Maspeth, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 12,000 portable DVD/CD/MP3 Players. The company said the portable DVD/CD/MP3 players can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Coby Electronics Corp. has received three reports of the units overheating, one of which involved minor property damage from a fire. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves two different portable DVD/CD/MP3 players: 5" TFT Portable DVD/CD/MP3 Player with TV Tuner and Digital AM/FM Tuner Model no. TF-DVD170 Product is spherical in shape with a 5" TV screen in front. The name "COBY" is written above the screen. The model number can be found on the bottom of the unit. (2) 5.6" TFT Portable DVD/CD/MP3 Player and NTSC TV Tuner Model no. TF-DVD176 Product is spherical in shape with a 5.6" TV screen in front. The name "COBY" is written above the screen. The model number can be found on the bottom of the unit. The DVD/CD/MP3 players were made in China and sold at discount, electronics, music, toy, and office supply stores, as well as distributors of electronics products, nationwide from May 2006 through October 2007 for between $140 and $170. Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the portable DVD/CD/MP3 players and contact the firm for information on returning the units and receiving a full refund. For additional information, contact Coby Electronics Corp. toll-free at (877) 231-9240 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.cobyusa.com COMCAST INC: Accused of Blocking Customers' Internet Services ------------------------------------------------------------- Comcast Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 1 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, accusing it of defrauding consumers by advertising its Internet services as "lightning fast" and "mind-blowing" speed, but intentionally slowing to crawl or blocking altogether some Internet applications, including file sharing and Lotus Notes, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff John Hart brings this suit as a class action on behalf of all persons in California who purchased the Service between Nov. 13, 2003, and the present and used or attempted to use peer-to-peer or Online file sharing applications and/or lotus notes. He wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants advertise and market the Service by promoting the speed at which its customers may download and upload data from the internet; (b) whether defendants promise that customers of the Service will be provided with unfettered access to the internet; (c) whether defendants block the Blocked Applications; (d) whether defendants impede the Blocked Applications; (e) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the Blocked Applications constitutes a breach of the contract; (f) whether there is an enforceable written contract between defendants and the class; (g) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the Blocked Applications results in aggregate loss by the class in excess of $5000; (h) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the Blocked Applications constitutes a violation of CFAA; (i) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the Blocked Applications while permitting unfettered use of other applications constitutes a violation of Federal Communications Commission Policy Statement, FCC 05151; (j) whether defendants' marketing and advertising is likely to deceive the class; and (k) whether members are entitled to compensatory, injunctive and other equitable relief. Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows: -- that the court declare this a class action; -- that the court preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from conducting their business through the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices, untrue and misleading advertising and other violations of law described in the complaint; -- that the court order defendants to conduct a corrective advertising and information campaign advising consumers that the Service does not have the characteristics, uses, benefits, and quality defendants have claimed; -- that the court order defendants to implement whatever measures are necessary to remedy the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices, untrue and misleading advertising and other violations of law described in the complaint; -- that the court order defendants to notify each and every member of the class of the pendency of the claims in the action in order to give such individuals and businesses an opportunity to obtain restitution from defendants; -- that the court order defendants to pay restitution to restore to all affected persons all funds acquired by means of any act or practice, untrue or misleading advertising or a violation of the CLRA, CFAA and/or FCC Policy 05-151, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon; -- that the court order defendants to disgorge all monies wrongfully obtained and all revenues and profits derived by defendants as a result of their acts or practices as alleged in the complaint; -- that the court award damages calculated as purchase price of the products at issue, plus any out-of-pocket costs associated with the replacement of such products, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest theron; -- that the court impose statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages for defendants' acts constituting oppression, fraud or malice in an amount sufficient to punish and deter others from similar wrongdoing; -- that the court grant plaintiff his reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, Civil Code Section 1780(d), the common fund doctrine and/or any other applicable legal theory; and -- that the court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper. The suit is "Jon Hart et al. v. Comcast of Alameda, Inc. et al., Case No. PG 07355993," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. Representing plaintiffs are: Mark N. Todzo Eric S. Somers Howard J. Hirsch Lexington Law Group, LLP 1627 Irivng Street San Francisco, CA 94122 Phone: (415) 759-4111 Fax: (415) 759-4112 COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Yet to be Determined in Uninsured's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, Eufaula Division has yet to rule on class determination issues in a purported class action filed against Community Health Systems, Inc. The suit was filed by Arleana Lawrence and Lisa Nichols against Eufaula Community Hospital, Community Health Systems, Inc., South Baldwin Regional Medical Center and Community Health Systems Professional Services Corp. The class action, previously, captioned, “Arleana Lawrence and Robert Hollins v. Lakeview Community Hospital and Community Health Systems, Inc.,” was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and as the representatives of similarly situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Lakeview Hospital or any of the company's other Alabama hospitals. Plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high rates for services and materials and that the company use unconscionable methods to collect bills. They seek restitution of overpayment, compensatory and other allowable damages and injunctive relief. In October 2005, the complaint was amended to eliminate one of the named plaintiffs and to add Community Health's management company subsidiary as a defendant. In November 2005, the complaint was again amended to add another plaintiff, Lisa Nichols and another defendant, a hospital in Foley, Alabama, South Baldwin Regional Medical Center. Discovery has been concluded on the class determination issues and a hearing was held on June 13, 2007. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Nixing of Ill. “Rix” Uninsured Suit Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Sheri Rix v. Heartland Regional Medical Center and Health Care Systems, Inc.,” which names Community Health Systems, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as defendants, are appealing the dismissal of the case by the Circuit Court of Williamson County, Illinois. This class action, served against the company on March 3, 2005, was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and as the representative of similarly situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Heartland Regional Medical Center. Plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high rates for services and materials and that the company uses unconscionable methods to collect bills. Plaintiff seeks recovery for breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of overpayment, and for unjust enrichment. It also seeks compensatory and other damages and equitable relief. The Circuit Court Judge recently granted company's motion to dismiss this case, but allowed the plaintiff to re-plead her case. The plaintiff elected to appeal the Circuit Court’s decision in lieu of amending her case. The parties are briefing their positions, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities. COMMUNITY HEALTH: “Chronister” Uninsured's Suit in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is still ongoing in the purported class action, "Chronister, et al. v. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company, LLC d/b/aGateway Regional Medical Center," which was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois and names Community Health Systems, Inc. as a defendant. The complaint, which was served against the company on April 8, 2005, seeks class-action status on behalf of the uninsured patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to uninsured patients. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The company’s motion to dismiss has been granted in part and denied in part and discovery has commenced. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Community Health Systems, Inc., -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities. COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Cal. Suit Claims “Bait and Switch” Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and affiliates, including Full Spectrum Lending, are facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging they defrauded customers with false promises of low mortgage rates. Named plaintiffs David E. Dorpat and Mary Ann Dorpat bring this action on behalf of all persons in the United States who, at any time between Jan. 1, 2003 and the present, obtained at least one residential mortgage loan from Countrywide and were subject to any of the unlawful lending practices described, including unfair, misleading and/or deceptive solicitation practices, excessive fees, unfair, abusive or undisclosed loan terms and deceptive steering. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether Countrywide's took "adverse action" against plaintiffs and the class and, if so, whether Countrywide provide notices of adverse action, as required by the ECOA; (b) whether Countrywide has been or is engaged in a "bait and switch" scheme, in which class members have been lured in with promises of a particular set of loan terms, and are then given different and far less beneficial terms; (c) whether documents, contracts, and practices relating to the transactions between members of the class and Countrywide were unfair, misleading, unconscionable, deceptive, untrue, misleading, or omitted material facts and disclosures; (d) whether Countrywide misrepresented, concealed, and/or failed to disclose loan terms; (e) whether Countrywide misled the plaintiffs and the class in connection with marketing, solicitation, sale, operation, and administration of the mortgage loans; (f) whether the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to the imposition of a constructive trust or other equitable or injunctive relief as a result of, among other things, Countrywide's unjust enrichment; (g) whether Countrywide has been or is engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices, and whether the alleged conduct violated the California Business and Professions Code and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (h) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to injunctive relief, and if, so, the nature of such relief; (i) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to damages and the appropriate measure of such damages; and (j) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to punitive damages. Plaintiffs request judgment and relief as follows: -- certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, declaring plaintiffs as representatives of the class, as well as appointing plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the class; -- that the court decalre, adjudge and decree that Countrywide has committed the violations of federal and state law alleged; -- that Countrywide be enjoined from continuing the illegal course of conduct alleged; -- that the court award damages, as set forth, to plaintiffs and the class, in an amount to be determined at trial; -- that the court order disgorgement of Countrywide's ill- gotten gains and award plaintiffs and the class full restitution of all monies wrongfully acquired by Countrywide; -- that plaintiffs and the class be granted such other, further and different relief that is necessary to remedy the continuing harm caused by and prevent the recurrence of Countrywide's unlawful conduct described; -- that the court award plaintiffs their attorneys' fees, costs and prejudgment interest and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "David E. Dorpat et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al. Case No. CV07-07438AHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Christopher Kim Lisa J. Yang George Busu Kim Ruger & Kim, LLP 1055 West SEventh Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 955-9500 Joseph H. Meltzer Edward W. Ciolko Joseph A. Weeden Schiffrin Barroway Topz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 - and - Guri Ademi Shpetim Ademi David J. Syrios Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 COVAD COMMS: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Blackberry Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Covad Communications Group, Inc. faces a purported class action in California over a merger agreement among the company, Blackberry Holding Corp. and Blackberry Merger Corp., according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. On Oct. 31, 2007, the company and the members of its Board of Directors were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought by William Forte in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty by defendants in connection with the transaction contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of Oct. 28, 2007, by and among the company, Blackberry Holding Corp. and Blackberry Merger Corp. Plaintiff seeks certain equitable relief, including an injunction to prevent or unwind the transaction, attorney’s fees and other fees. Covad Communications Group, Inc. -- http://www.covad.com/-- provides voice and data communications products and services to consumers and businesses throughout the U.S. in approximately 235 major metropolitan areas in 44 states. Its products and services include high-speed, or broadband, data communications, Internet access connectivity, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony and a variety of related services. It primarily uses digital subscriber line (DSL) and DS-1, also referred to as T-1, technologies to deliver its services. COVAD COMMS: Settles Breach of Fiduciary Suit by Former Counsel --------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement was reached in a purported class action filed against Covad Communications Group, Inc.'s current and former directors by the company's former general counsel. The suit is pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, New Castle County. In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the company's general counsel and secretary. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Khanna alleged that, over a period of years, certain current and former directors and officers had breached their fiduciary duties to the company by engaging in or approving actions that constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and former directors and officers had provided false representations to the company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his duties in retaliation for his being a purported whistleblower and because of racial or national origin discrimination. Based on the events mentioned, in September 2003, Mr. Khanna filed a purported class action and a derivative lawsuit against the company's current and former directors. On Aug. 3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his complaint and two additional purported shareholders joined the lawsuit. In this action the plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the company from the individual defendants for their purported breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the company's election of directors in 2002, 2003 and 2004 because they claim that the company's proxy statements were misleading. On Oct. 11, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and a motion to disqualify Mr. Khanna and the additional plaintiffs as class representatives. On May 9, 2006, the court dismissed several of the claims for breach of fiduciary duty as well as the claims relating to our proxy statements. The court also determined that Mr. Khanna could no longer serve as a plaintiff in this matter. On Sept. 27, 2007, the company entered into a settlement in the Khanna lawsuit. If the settlement is approved by the court, the company will receive approximately $5,000 from certain of the company’s current and former directors and a former investor, consisting primarily of Covad stock, net of plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee and certain costs. The settlement, if approved, will also result in the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. The settlement expressly states that each defendant, including the company , denies liability. Subject to final approval by the court, the settlement proceeds will be paid to the company pursuant to the terms of the settlement. The company has determined that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. The Stipulation of Settlement and related paperwork is on file with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. The settlement is subject to and conditioned upon the court’s final approval after public notice of the proposed settlement and expiration of the time for appeal from any orders approving the settlement. Covad Communications Group, Inc. -- http://www.covad.com/-- provides voice and data communications products and services to consumers and businesses throughout the U.S. in approximately 235 major metropolitan areas in 44 states. Its products and services include high-speed, or broadband, data communications, Internet access connectivity, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony and a variety of related services. It primarily uses digital subscriber line (DSL) and DS-1, also referred to as T-1, technologies to deliver its services. DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal with regards to the decertification of a purported class action that accuses DENTSPLY International, Inc. of misrepresenting its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S. and Richard Nathan, D.D.S. filed a class action in San Francisco County, California. The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class is defined as California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients. The company filed a motion for decertification of the class and this motion was granted. Plaintiffs have appealed the decertification of the class to the California Court of Appeals. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron --------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International, Inc. continues to face a purported class action alleging that the company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty. The company allegedly misrepresented the potential uses of the product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water. On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for Cavitron scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick. Representing the plaintiff is: Alan Klein, Esq. Duane Morris LLP 30 South 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Phone: 215-979-1000 Fax: 215-979-1020 E-mail: aklein@duanemorris.com Representing the defendants is: Richard G. Placey Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: 215-772-7424 Fax: 215-772-7620 E-mail: rplacey@mmwr.com DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International Inc. still faces several lawsuits that accuse it of engaging in a conspiracy to violate antitrust laws in relation to the sale of Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. Subsequent to the filing of the Department of Justice Complaint in 1999, several private party class actions were filed based on allegations similar to those in the Department of Justice case, on behalf of dental laboratories, and denture patients in seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. These cases were transferred to the United States District Court in Wilmington, Delaware. The private party suits seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Court has granted the Company’s Motion on the lack of standing of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue damage claims. The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to the Third Circuit and the Court largely upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the exception of allowing the Plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a theory of resale price maintenance between the Company and its tooth dealers. The Plaintiffs’ petition to the United States Supreme Court asking it to review this decision of the Third Circuit was denied. The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended complaint asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the dealers among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws. Dentsply and the dealers have filed Motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims, except for the resale price maintenance claims. Additionally, manufacturers of two competitive tooth lines and a dealer, as a putative class action, have filed separate actions seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the Company’s tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of the antitrust law. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. DIGIMARC CORP: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected in 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Digimarc Corp. is expecting the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to issue in 2008 a ruling on an appeal against the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the company. Beginning in September 2004, three purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities during the period April 17, 2002 to July 28, 2004. These lawsuits were later consolidated into one action for all purposes. The amended complaint, which sought unspecified damages, asserted claims under the federal securities laws relating to the company's restatement of its financial statements for 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004 and alleged that the company issued false and misleading financial statements and issued misleading public statements about the company's operations and prospects. On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company’s favor. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was stayed pending the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s determination in another case of issues relating to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and briefing is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. The Company anticipates oral argument and a decision in 2008. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corp. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01455-BR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Anna J. Brown. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gary M. Berne, Esq. Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 227-1600 Fax: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: gberne@ssbls.com - and - Gary I. Grenley, Esq. Paul H. Trinchero, Esq. Grenley Rotenberg Evans Bragg & Bodie PC 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 241-0570 Fax: (503) 241-0914 E-mail: ggrenley@grebb.com ptrinchero@grebb.com GAP INC: Faces Suit Over Theft of Job Applicants' Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- Gap Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging it allowed 800,000 job-seekers' confidential information, including Social Security numbers, to be stolen from a third-party vendor that manages job applications, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Joel Ruiz claims the information, which was not encrypted, exposed all 800,000 to identity theft. An unidentified thief stole two laptop computers with the information on Sept. 28, the complaint states. Mr. Ruiz claims Gap's negligence exposed online and telephone job applicants in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico to ID theft. He further claims that Gap failed to investigate the data security practices of its third-party vendor; that it saved sensitive records on portable computers that should have been housed in a secure central computer; and negligently required job applicants to input sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers, to apply for a job. Mr. Ruiz received a letter from Gap CEO Glenn Murphy, assuring him that the information had not been "accessed or used improperly." Gap also offered to pay for 12 months of credit monitoring and fraud assistance. But Mr. Ruiz wants long-term monitoring of Gap's security measures. He also refused the offer because by doing so, they would have waive their right to a jury trial should the credit monitoring service fail. He brings this suit as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons that have applied for a position with Gap Inc., Old Navy, Banana Republic, Piperline, Outlet Stores, or any other relevant Gap brand store, through Gap's application process from July 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007, and whose personal information was compromised in a laptop theft from one or more of Gap's third party vendors. He asks the court to rule on: (a) whether Gap failed to exercise reasonable security measures to protect the personal information of plaintiff and the class; (b) whether Gap's failure to protect the personal information of plaintiff and the class violated their legally protected privacy interest under the California Constitution; (c) whether plaintiff and the class are at an increased risk of identity theft as a result of Gap's failure to protect the personal information of plaintiff and the class; (d) whether defendant owed the legal duties discussed to plaintiff and the class and whether defendant breached these duties; and (e) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to the relief sought, including injunctive relief. Plaintiff demands judgment on behalf of himself and those similarly situated as follows: -- for an order certifying the proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and appointing plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel of record to represent said class; -- awarding plaintiff and class members compensatory damages against defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, together with prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; -- grant all appropriate injunctive relief under Cal.Bus. and Prof.Code Section 17200 et seq. as stated; -- grant all appropriate relief under Cal.Civ.Code Section 1798.85; -- awarding plaintiff and class members the reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including attorneys' fees, filing fees; and -- grant additional legal or equitable releif as the court may find just and proper. The suit is "Joel Ruiz et al. v. Gap, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 07 5739," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Christine Pedigo Bartholomew 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 398-8700 Fax: (415) 398-8704 Mila F. Bartos Tracy Rezvani Karen J. Marcus Finkelstein Thompson LLP 1050 30th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 337-8000 Fax: (202) 337-8090 - and - Ben Barnow Barnow and Associates PC One N. LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 MULTIPLEX GROUP: ASIC Told to Hand over Investigation Documents --------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Court ordered the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions to hand over documents and examination transcripts to a shareholder class action against Multiplex, Elisabeth Sexton of Sydney Morning Herald reports. Justice Alan Goldberg rejected the regulator's claim the material was protected by public interest immunity. He explained the reasons to ASIC, but not to the public. The materials include 36 documents and statements and examination transcripts of 23 witnesses ASIC interviewed during a forceful investigation into Multiplex's disclosure of delays to its Wembley Stadium project. In December, the ASIC concluded from the investigation that Multiplex failed to comply with its continuous disclosure obligations from February 3 to 23, 2005. Without admitting guild, Multiplex signed an enforceable undertaking and agreed to pay shareholders $32 million in compensation. The class action is seeking $100 million and alleges failure to disclose between August 2, 2004, and May 30, 2005. "We expect that the transcripts of the examinations will go a substantial way in showing the shareholders what the company knew and when," said shareholders' solicitor, Bernard Murphy, from Maurice Blackburn. In September 2002, Multiplex won a contract to rebuild Wembley Stadium. Cost blowouts and problems with contractors delayed construction and caused hundreds of millions in losses. Subsequently, Maurice Blackburn lodged a class action in the Federal Court, in Melbourne, on behalf of shareholders of Australian property developer Multiplex over the redevelopment of London's iconic Wembley Stadium (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2006). The suit claims shareholders were victims of Multiplex's failure to keep the market properly informed about problems it was having with the $1 billion project and the likely impact those problems would have on the company's profits. NEBRASKA: Black Workers Pay More for Health Insurance, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- The State of Nebraska and its Health and Human Services Department are facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 7 in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska claiming black employees are forced to pay more for health insurance, with fewer plan choices, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Sandra Cartwright claims 96 of the defendants' black workers live in three ZIP codes, and workers in those ZIP codes only must pay more money for less coverage, with less choice of plans. She claims that only certain employees of the defendant were required to purchase their health insurance exclusively through Mutual of Omaha or pay significantly higher premiums for coverage offered through BlueCross BlueShield. The citizens and employees who were offered these options resided in certain zip code areas in the State of Nebraska. Further, citizens in these zip codes, were required to purchase health insurance which was not equal to in price or in benefits to the health insurance other employees of the defendants, who lived in other zip codes could purchase. The health insurance coverage offered through the Mutual of Omaha Insurance was less satisfactory, less comprehensive, provided fewer services, fewer providers, less coverage and less treatment options than the health insurance plan offered in all other zip codes in the State of Nebraska other than zip codes starting with 680, 681 and 685. As a proximate result of the defendants' illegal conduct, plaintiff has suffered actual monetary and compensatory damages and continue to suffer them on an ongoing basis. She requests that the court enter judgment as follows: -- certify this as a class action proceeding; -- declare the conduct of the defendants to be violative of the rights of all plaintiffs under state and federal law; -- order that the defendants immediately offer to the plaintiffs the same coverage available to other employees of the State of Nebraska who reside in different zip codes or to offer them the same type of insurance available to approximately 96% or more of all white citizens employed by the State of Nebraska; -- award all plaintiffs in the class compensatory damages for pain, suffering, humiliation and emotional distress in an amount to be determined by the jury; -- enjoin the defendants from any further discrimination against the plaintiff; and -- award the plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorney fees and such other and further relief as the court deems just, reasonable and appropriate to correct the wrong done to the plaintiff. The suit is "Sandra Cartwright et al. v. The State of Nebraska et al., Case No. CV07-4648," filed in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska. Representing plaintiffs is: Kathleen M. Neary Vincent M. Powers Vincent M. Powers & Associates 411 south 13th Street, Suite 300 Lincoln, NE 68508 Phone: (402) 474-8000 SAN DIEGO GAS: Accused of Negligence in Witch Creek Wildfire ------------------------------------------------------------ San Diego Gas & Electric Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 13 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, claiming it caused the devastating Witch Creek wildfire by failing to inspect and trim trees, brush and hazards near its power lines, the CourtHouse News reports. Named plaintiffs Kenyon and Kathy Clark brings this action as a class action for economic damages and injunctive relief on behalf of all persons whose property was destroyed by the "Witch Creek fire" against defendant in the State of California. The Witch Creek Fire, which started Oct. 21, burned 197,990 acres from Santa Ysabel to Rancho Santa Fe. The cost as of Nov. 1 for the Witch Creek Fire was $16 million, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The 198,000-acre Witch Creek fire destroyed 911 homes, 30 commercial buildings and 239 automobiles from Oct. 21 to Nov. 5 and "was caused by a power line owned and operated by SDG&E," the complaint states. Plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether SDG&E properly removed vegetation that could interfere with its transmission and distribution lines; (b) whether SDG&E failed to clear vegetation from its transmission and distribution lines according to state codes and regulations; (c) whether SDG&E failed to clear vegetation from its transmission and distribution lines according to its own standards; (d) whether SDG&E's conduct violates the California Public Resources Code; (e) whether SDG&E's conduct violates the California common laws; (f) whether SDG&E's conduct is unlawful and/or unfair constitution violations of Section 17200, et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code; and (g) whether SDG&E intentionally failed to cut and trim brush as required by State codes and is liable for punitive damages or waiting time penalties. They request that the court grant the following relief: -- that this action be certified as a class action on behalf of the proposed plaintiff class and the plaintiffs be appointed as the representatives of the class, and for an order requiring defendants to identify each member of the class by name, home address, and home telephone number; -- for an accounting, under administration of the plaintiffs and/or the receiver and subject to court review, to determine the amount to be returned by defendants, and the amounts to be refunded to members of the class who are owed monies by defendants; -- injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and awarding the plaintiff and the class full restitution of all monies wrongfully acquired by defendant by means of such "unfair" and "unlawful" conduct, plus interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, Section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; -- general damages according to proof; -- compensatory damages according to proof; -- consequential damages according to proof; -- prejudgment and post judgment interest as provided by statute; -- attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs of this action pursuant to statute; -- punitive damages; and -- such further relief as the court deems necessary, just and proper. The suit is "Kenyon Clark et al. v. San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., Case No. 37-2007-00081605-CU-NP-CTL," filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego under Judge Charles R. Hayes. Representing plaintiffs are: James P. Frantz, Esq. Philip C. Aman, Esq. Franzt Law Group 600 West Broadway, Suite 1200 San Diego, California 92101 Phone: (619) 233-5945 Fax: (619) 525-7672 SOLUTIA INC: “Reiff” ERISA Suit Defendants Seek Case Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in the suit, “Reiff v. Metz,” which alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, have filed a motion to dismiss the case. Former officers and employees of Solutia, Inc., and Solutia's Employee Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds Committee faces a purported class action alleging violations of ERISA. The suit, Reiff v. Metz, was filed on June 25, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The purported class representative in Reiff is a current Solutia employee. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in September 2007, which is pending before the Court. The suit is “Reiff v. Metz et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06011-LAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Loretta A. Preska. Representing the plaintiff is: Ronen Sarraf, Esq. Sarraf Gentile, LLP 485 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 868-3610 Fax: (212) 918-7967 E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com TIGER BRANDS: Could Face South African Lawsuit Over Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- South African bread distributors, led by Imraahn Ismail- Mukaddam, and trade union Cosatu are considering legal action against food and pharmaceuticals group Tiger Brands after the company admitted price-fixing, Reuters South Africa reports. According to the report, South Africa's Competition Commission said that Tiger Brands had admitted guilt in taking part in a cartel with other food companies and would pay a fine of close to ZAR100 million ($14.9 million). The Competition Commission found that bakeries owned by Tiger Brands, Premier Foods Ltd. and a third company had colluded to raise prices to distributors and agreed not to supply each others', the report said. "It had an immediate impact on our business... and we had to pass that loss on to the consumers," Mr. Ismail-Mukaddam told Reuters. "We must take this further and we are definitely considering taking this further in the form of a class action suit ...," he added. According to Mr. Ismail-Mukaddam, up to 50 parties could take part in the class action. "We'll support any steps that bring relief to poor people from the rampant exploitation of many of these big companies that are colluding to really profit off people's misery,” said Tony Ehrenreich, Cosatu's Western Cape provincial secretary. Tiger Brands could not immediately be reached for comment, the report said. Tiger Brands Ltd. makes a lot of rands. Its largest sector is food manufacturing, which including products such as breakfast cereals, confectionery, canned and ready-to-eat foods, sugar, flour, salty snacks, and baked goods. Tiger's healthcare division manufactures over-the-counter and prescription medicines as well as hospital products. The company has operations in the fishing and personal care products sectors. The company operates a joint venture with Ashton Canning Company, L&A Foods, a leading South African supplier of canned fruit for the export market. WAL-MART STORES: “Hummel” Plaintiffs Win Additional Award --------------------------------------------------------- Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein awarded Wal- Mart Stores Inc. employees $46.7 million in costs and attorneys expenses, the Jurist reports. Wal-Mart has said it will appeal the decision. On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded $62.3 million in back-pay damages to the plaintiffs for off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The plaintiffs consist of 187,000 current and former employees who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs from March 1998 through May 2006. In the recent ruling, about 125,000 people will receive $500 each in damages under a state law invoked when a company, without cause, withholds pay for more than 30 days. Case Background The suit, "Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," was certified in January 2006. In October 2006, a jury awarded nearly $78.5 million to the class comprising of some 186,000 current and former employees of Pennsylvania stores who claimed they weren't properly paid for missed rest breaks and off-the-clock work (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006). The case involves labor practices at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores between March 1998 and May 1, 2006. The lead plaintiff is Dolores Hummel, who worked at a Sam's Club in Reading from 1992-2002. Ms. Hummel charged that she had to work through breaks and after quitting time to meet work demands in the bakery. She said that she worked eight to 12 unpaid hours a month, on average, to meet work demands. The recent ruling brings the total award in the case to $187.5 million. For more details, contact plaintiff’s lawyer: Michael Donovan, Esq. Donovan Searles 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, (Philadelphia Co.) Phone: 215-732-6067 Fax: 215-732-8060 Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Removal Expense for Cleco Unit at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corp. says that a US$100,000 increase in equity earnings at its Cleco Evangeline LLC affiliate was primarily due to the absence of asbestos removal expense during the 2007-3rd quarter, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2007. Equity income from investees increased US$12.8 million, or 86.8 percent, in the 2007-3rd quarter compared with the 2006-3rd quarter. The increase was due to a US$12.7 million increase in equity earnings at affiliate Acadia Power Holdings LLC (APH) and a US$100,000 increase at Evangeline. Pineville, La.-based Cleco Corp.'s Cleco Power LLC unit generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to 268,000 residential and business customers in 104 communities in Louisiana. Cleco Power has a generating capacity of more than 1,350 MW from its interests in fossil-fueled power plants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 1,993 Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded about 1,993 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2007. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,645 plaintiffs. Of those claims, about 2,652 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. As of June 30, 2007, the Company faced lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,592 plaintiffs. Of those claims, about 1,950 claims were pending and 2,642 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had accrued US$900,000 for liability and related expenses. Based in Hoffddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is a global specialty engineering and construction company that makes flat-bottom tanks for storing crude oil, gas, water, chemicals, and manufacturing feedstocks; cryogenic tanks and systems to maintain liquid gases; natural gas processing plants; elevated tanks for water storage; and pressure vessels for high-pressure/high-temperature applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Records $637M Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Standard Companies Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to US$637 million in its consolidated balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$652.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2007. The Company's long-term asbestos liability, as of June 30, 2007, amounted to US$642.6 million. (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2007) The Company's long-term asbestos receivable amounted to US$336 million in its consolidated balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$336.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. As of June 30, 2007, the Company’s long-term asbestos receivable amounted to US$336.9 million. (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2007) Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. makes air-conditioning systems and plumbing products. The Company's air-conditioning division makes consumer and commercial systems under the Trane and American Standard brand names. The Company plans to rename itself Trane, after its best-selling brand. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Cos. Faces 102,663 Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Standard Companies Inc. faced 102,663 open asbestos- related claims in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 102,223 claims in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2007. The Company recorded 102,653 open asbestos-related claims filed against as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 2,308 new claims filed, 521 claims settled, and 1,347 claims dismissed. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 4,440 new claims filed, 846 claims settled, and 15,107 claims dismissed. Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injury claims arising primarily from its historical sales of boilers and railroad brake shoes. In these asbestos-related lawsuits, the Company is usually named as one of a large group of defendants. Many of these lawsuits involve multiple claimants, do not specifically identify the injury or disease for which damages are sought and do not allege a connection between any Company product and a claimed injury or disease. As a result, numerous lawsuits have been placed, and may remain on, inactive or deferred dockets, which some jurisdictions have established. From receipt of its first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago to Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has resolved 62,797 claims. The total amount of all settlements paid by the Company (excluding insurance recoveries) and by its insurance carriers is about US$100.2 million, for an average payment per resolved claim of US$1,595. The average payment per claim resolved during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 was US$8,175, compared with US$1,260 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Because claims are frequently filed and settled in large groups, the amount and timing of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period. The Company's total asbestos liability was estimated at US$650 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$665.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The asbestos indemnity liability decreased by US$15.8 million during the first nine months of 2007 due to claims payments made during the year. Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. makes air-conditioning systems and plumbing products. The Company's air-conditioning division makes consumer and commercial systems under the Trane and American Standard brand names. The Company plans to rename itself Trane, after its best-selling brand. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has N.J. Coverage Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Standard Companies Inc. continues to be involved in litigation filed in New Jersey court against certain carriers whose policies the Company says provide coverage for asbestos claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2007. The insurance carriers named in this suit are challenging the Company’s right to recovery. The Company filed the action in April 1999 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various of its primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking coverage for environmental claims. The N.J. Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for asbestos related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted the Company’s motion to add to the N.J. Litigation 16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies. The court also required the parties to submit all contested matters to mediation. The Company and the defendants in the N.J. Litigation engaged in their first mediation session on Jan. 18, 2006 and have been in active discussions since that time. During the mediation, the parties agreed to an extension of discovery through Nov. 12, 2007. With the addition of the parties and policies, the N.J. Litigation would resolve the coverage issues with respect to about 94 percent of the recorded receivable. The remaining six percent of the recorded receivable comes from policies as to which the Company has not sought resolution of coverage because the policies were issued by parties whose coverage obligations are triggered at higher excess layers that are not expected to be reached in the near future. In February 2005, the Company settled with Equitas for US$84.5 million to buy-out the participants of certain underwriters in pre-1993 Lloyd’s, London policies included in the Company’s insurance coverage. As of Dec. 31, 2006, US$64.9 million remained in a trust, excluding interest, which expired Jan. 3, 2007. Under the settlement, since there was no U.S. Federal legislation by Jan. 3, 2007 that took asbestos claims out of the courts, the balance of the funds was disbursed to the Company on Jan. 4, 2007. Of the US$64.9 million, about US$44.2 million relates to historical asbestos claim settlements and current legal expenses incurred and the balance represents amounts relating to future legal costs to be incurred. The Company's asbestos receivable was US$345.4 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$385.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The asbestos receivable decreased by US$40.4 million during the first nine months of 2007. Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. makes air-conditioning systems and plumbing products. The Company's air-conditioning division makes consumer and commercial systems under the Trane and American Standard brand names. The Company plans to rename itself Trane, after its best-selling brand. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $30.8M Charge at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Financial Group Inc., in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, recorded a pre-tax asbestos charge of US$30.8 million for P&C insurance runoff operations, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2007. The Company, in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, recorded an after-tax asbestos charge of US$20 million for P&C insurance runoff operations. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded a pre-tax asbestos charge of US$19 million for former railroad and manufacturing operations. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded an after-tax asbestos charge of US$12.4 million for former railroad and manufacturing operations. Cincinnati-based American Financial Group Inc., through the operations of the Great American Insurance Group, is engaged primarily in property and casualty insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products for businesses, and in the sale of traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a variety of supplemental insurance products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.34B for Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp.'s reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.34 billion at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$1.38 billion at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2007. The Company's reserves for asbestos claims, net of insurance recoverables, were US$804 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$823 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's reserves for asbestos claims, at June 30, 2007, amounted to US$1.35 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$805 million. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007) About 64 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves at Sept. 30, 2007 were for incurred but not reported estimates, compared with 67 percent at Dec. 31, 2006. Underwriting losses of US$71 million in the 2007-3rd quarter and US$36 million in the first nine months of 2007 were primarily related to a US$6 million unfavorable reestimate of asbestos reserves. The nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 also includes a US$46 million reduction in the reinsurance recoverable valuation allowance related to Equitas Ltd.’s improved financial position as a result of its reinsurance coverage with National Indemnity Co. In the 2006-3rd quarter, unfavorable asbestos reserve reestimates totaled US$86 million. Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corp. is the second-largest U.S. personal lines insurer, behind State Farm. The Company sells auto, homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Faces More Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunoco Inc. says that legal and administrative proceedings are pending or may be brought against it arising out of allegations of exposures of third parties to toxic substances like asbestos or benzene. Many other legal and administrative proceedings are pending or may be brought against the Company arising out of its current and past operations, including matters related to commercial and tax disputes, product liability, antitrust, employment claims, leaks from pipelines and underground storage tanks, natural resource damage claims, premises-liability claims, and general environmental claims. Although the ultimate outcome of these proceedings cannot be ascertained at this time, it is reasonably possible that some of these matters could be resolved unfavorably to the Company. The Company said it believes that any liabilities that may arise from those matters would not be material in relation to the Company’s business or consolidated financial position at Sept. 30, 2007. Philadelphia-based Sunoco Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets various petroleum products, including fuels, lubricants, and petrochemicals in the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Litigation Ongoing v. SCC Affiliates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Copper Corp.'s direct and indirect parent corporations continue to be named parties in various litigations, including those that are asbestos-related, involving Asarco, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. These direct and indirect parent corporations include Americas Mining Corp. and Grupo Mexico. In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim alleging fraudulent conveyance over AMC’s then-proposed purchase of the Company from Asarco. That action was settled under a Consent Decree dated Feb. 2, 2003. In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in the Company from Asarco. In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre and other parties, not including the Company, were named in a lawsuit filed in New York State court in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC’s purchase of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance. The lawsuit filed in New York State court was stayed as a result of the Aug. 9, 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Asarco. On Feb. 2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco, the debtor in possession, alleging many of the matters previously claimed in the New York State lawsuit, including that AMC’s purchase of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance. In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy petitions in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. In July 2005, the unionized workers of Asarco commenced a work stoppage. As a result of various factors, including the above-mentioned work stoppage, on Aug. 9, 2005 Asarco filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex. Asarco’s bankruptcy case is being joined with the bankruptcy cases of its subsidiaries. Asarco’s bankruptcy could result in additional claims being filed against Grupo Mexico and its subsidiaries, including the Company, Minera Mexico or its subsidiaries. With its U.S. headquarters in Phoenix, Southern Copper Corp. mines, smelts, and refines copper at its Toquepala and Cuajone mines. The Company produces blister copper and copper cathodes at its smelter and refinery in Peru. The Company produces about 1.5 billion pounds of copper annually. Americas Mining Corp., a Grupo Mexico subsidiary, owns 75 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp.'s Liability Remains at $18.7M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corp.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$18,694,000 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$18,694,000 as of July 1, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$4,244,000 as of Sept. 30, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables amounted to US$18,503,000 as of Sept. 30, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables amounted to US$4,244,000 as of Sept. 30, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. Based in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp.'s specialty materials are used in various electronic and consumer products. The Company's products include printed circuit board laminates and polyester- based industrial laminates, which are used in digital cellular communications, hand-held devices, and direct broadcast TV. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Has 177 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corp. recorded about 177 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 148 pending claims at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. The Company, as of July 1, 2007, recorded about 161 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos. Rather, the Company made some limited products, which contained encapsulated asbestos. Those products were provided to industrial users. The Company stopped manufacturing these products in 1987. The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants, although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims. In the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company was able to have about 44 claims dismissed and settled five claims. For the full year 2006, about 78 claims were dismissed and 16 were settled. Most of the costs have been paid by the Company's insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been settled. Those settlements totaled about US$700,000 in the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$5.1 million in all of 2006. Based in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp.'s specialty materials are used in various electronic and consumer products. The Company's products include printed circuit board laminates and polyester- based industrial laminates, which are used in digital cellular communications, hand-held devices, and direct broadcast TV. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Suit v. 2 Reynolds Units Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia court and filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is still stayed, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. In Parsons v. AC&S Inc. (a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va.), the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons’ use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the plaintiffs’ motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants (Nitral Liquidators Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World Industries) filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries Inc. Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants. Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiaries include its operating subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lane Ltd., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc., R. J. Reynolds Global Products Inc., and Conwood Company LLC, Conwood Sales Co. LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC, and Rosswil LLC. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Awaits Ruling in Cooper Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PepsiAmericas Inc. expects the Illinois Supreme Court to announce in the 2007-4th quarter or the 2008-1st quarter whether it will allow Cooper Industries LLC's request for a further appeal in an asbestos-related action, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. On May 31, 2005, Cooper filed and later served a lawsuit against the Company, Pneumo Abex LLC, and the Trustee of the Trust, captioned Cooper Industries LLC v. PepsiAmericas Inc., et al., Case No. 05 CH 09214 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct.). The claims involve the Trust and an insurance policy bought by the Company in the 2002-2nd quarter. The insurance coverage related to sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex and its units. The trust, which was established in 2000 with the proceeds from an insurance settlement, bought insurance coverage and funded coverage for remedial and other costs related to the sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex and its units. Cooper asserts that it was entitled to access US$34 million that previously was in the Trust and that was used to purchase the insurance policy. Cooper claims that Trust funds should have been distributed for underlying Pneumo Abex asbestos claims indemnified by Cooper. Cooper complains that it was deprived of access to money in the Trust because of the Trustee’s decision to use the Trust funds to purchase the insurance policy. Pneumo Abex LLC, the corporate successor to the Company's prior subsidiary, has been dismissed from the suit. During the 2006-2nd quarter, the Trustee’s motion to dismiss, in which the Company had joined, was granted and three counts against the Company based on the use of Trust funds were dismissed with prejudice, as were all counts against the Trustee, on the grounds that Cooper lacks standing to pursue these counts because it is not a beneficiary under the Trust. The Company then filed a separate motion to dismiss the remaining counts against it. The Company's motion was granted during the 2006-2nd quarter and all remaining counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice. Cooper subsequently filed a notice of appeal with regard to all rulings by the court dismissing the counts against the Company and the Trustee. Prior to any oral argument, the appellate court on Sept. 7, 2007 issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s opinion. Cooper subsequently filed motion papers asking the Illinois Supreme Court to accept a discretionary appeal of the rulings. The Trustee then filed an opposition brief explaining why the Illinois Supreme Court should not allow another appeal, and the Company joined in that brief. The Company also has certain indemnification obligations related to product liability and toxic tort claims that might emanate out of the 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex. Other companies not owned by or associated with the Company also are responsible to Pneumo Abex for the financial burden of all asbestos product liability claims filed against Pneumo Abex after a certain date in 1998, except for certain claims indemnified by the Company. Minneapolis-based PepsiAmericas Inc. is the world's No. 2 Pepsi bottler (behind Pepsi Bottling Group). The Company also distributes Dr Pepper, Lipton Iced Teas, Welch's fruit drinks, Schweppes (tonic water, ginger ale), Starbucks Frappuccino, and bottled water. The Company operates in 19 U.S. states (mostly in the Midwest) and holds about 19 percent of the U.S. market for Pepsi products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 180 Lawsuits Still Pending v. Pepco in Md. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pepco Holdings Inc. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2007, about 180 asbestos-related cases are still pending against it in the State Courts of Maryland, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. Of the 180 cases, about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19, 2000, and have been tendered to Mirant Corp. for defense and indemnification under the terms of an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Mirant has agreed to assume this contractual obligation. The Company, as of June 30, 2007, continues to face about 180 asbestos-related cases pending against it in the State Courts of Maryland. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) During 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case." The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that the Company was negligent in not providing a safe work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working on Company property. Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added the Company to their complaints. While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from each defendant. Since the initial filings in 1993, more individual suits have been filed against the Company, and significant numbers of cases have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary judgment, the Company has had about 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court. Washington, D.C.-based Pepco Holdings Inc. distributes electricity to more than 1.8 million customers and natural gas to 121,000 customers through its utility subsidiaries. Non- regulated operations include independent power production (more than 5,000 MW of generating capacity), wholesale and retail energy marketing, and energy management services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Tech. Faces 26 Suits at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc., in the 2007-3rd quarter, continues to face 26 asbestos-related cases filed against it, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. The Company recorded 26 pending asbestos-related cases in the 2007-2nd quarter, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to asbestos containing materials. To date, one asbestos case have been dismissed. The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuits to date. The Company is unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of asbestos and silica cases in 2006 was US$100,000. Costs for the legal defense of these cases in the first three quarters of 2007 were US$49,900. To date, the Company has not been liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits. New York-based Minerals Technologies Inc.’s precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) products brighten and whiten paper, polymers, and teeth. Paper mills are major users of PCC, along with food and pharmaceutical companies, which use it for calcium and as a buffering agent in tablets. PCC products account for about half of the Company’s sales. The Company also sells monolithic and pre-cast refractory products, which are used to coat steel, cement, and glass production surfaces with high-temperature- resistant material. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Cleared in Miss. Cases, 5 Ill. Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ladish Co. Inc., as of the Company's 2007-3rd quarter report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007, has been dismissed from most asbestos cases in Mississippi and five of the cases in Illinois. From time to time the Company is involved in legal proceedings relating to claims arising out of its operations in the normal course of business. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos cases in Mississippi, six asbestos cases in Illinois and one asbestos case in California. The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The Company’s exposure to asbestos involves products the Company purchased from third parties. The Company has notified its insurance carriers of these claims and is vigorously defending these actions. The Company has not made any provision in its financial statements for the asbestos litigation. Cudahy, Wis.-based Ladish Co. Inc. designs and manufactures high-strength forged and cast metal components for aerospace and industrial markets. Jet engine parts, missile components, landing gear, helicopter rotors, and other aerospace products generate more than 80 percent of the Company's sales. General industrial components account for the rest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Suits in Miss. Ongoing v. GlobalSantaFe ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain subsidiaries of GlobalSantaFe Corp. still face six asbestos-related lawsuits filed in Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. Five of the suits are pending in the Circuit Court of Jones County and one of which is pending in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Miss. The suits allege that certain individuals aboard the Company's offshore drilling rigs had been exposed to asbestos. Filed in August 2004, these six lawsuits are part of a group of 23 lawsuits filed on behalf of about 800 plaintiffs against a large number of defendants, most of which are not affiliated with the Company. The Company's subsidiaries have not been named as defendants in any of the other 17 lawsuits. The lawsuits assert claims based on theories of unseaworthiness, negligence, strict liability and its subsidiaries’ status as Jones Act employers and seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In general, the defendants are alleged to have manufactured, distributed or utilized products containing asbestos. In the case of the Company's named subsidiaries and that of several other offshore drilling companies named as defendants, the lawsuits allege those defendants allowed such products to be utilized aboard offshore drilling rigs. The Company has not been provided with sufficient information to determine the number of plaintiffs who claim to have been exposed to asbestos aboard its rigs, whether they were employees nor their period of employment, the period of their alleged exposure to asbestos, nor their medical condition. Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate its potential exposure in these lawsuits. Houston-based GlobalSantaFe Corp. is an offshore oil and gas drilling contractor, owning or operating an active fleet of 59 marine drilling rigs. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's fleet included 43 cantilevered jackup rigs, 11 semisubmersibles, three drillships, and two additional semisubmersible rigs the Company operates for third parties under a joint venture agreement. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Unit Pursues Insurance Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- A GlobalSantaFe Corp. subsidiary is still involved in an asbestos-related insurance lawsuit filed against its insurance underwriters in the Superior Court of San Francisco County, Calif., according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. In the suit filed in February 2004, the Company seeks a declaration as to its rights to insurance coverage and the proper allocation among its insurers of liability for claims payments in order to assist in the future management and disposition of certain claims. The subsidiary’s three primary insurers had historically paid settlement and defense costs for the subsidiary. One of these insurers was nearing insolvency and claimed exhaustion of its coverage limits, but following negotiations agreed to make a cash payment in exchange for a release of all further liability for the subsidiary’s asbestos liabilities. Both of the subsidiary’s other primary insurers have entered into settlement agreements with the subsidiary that will provide for limited additional funding of asbestos liabilities and attorneys’ fees and costs associated therewith. The subsidiary also intends to enter into discussions with its excess insurers. The insurance coverage in question relates to lawsuits filed against the subsidiary arising out of its involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in the litigation and funds received from the cancellation of certain insurance policies. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the subsidiary had been named as a defendant in about 4,300 lawsuits, the first of which was filed in 1990, and a substantial number of which are currently pending. The Company said it believes that as of Jan. 1, 2007, from US$40 million to US$45 million had been expended to resolve claims (including both attorneys’ fees and expenses, and settlement costs), with the subsidiary having expended US$4 million of that amount due to insurance deductible obligations, all of which have now been satisfied. The same subsidiary was a defendant in a lawsuit filed against it by Union Oil Company of California in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. That lawsuit arose out of claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos at a refinery owned by Union and constructed by the Company's subsidiary. Union alleged that the subsidiary was required to defend and indemnify it under the terms of contracts entered into for the construction of the refinery. The Company was also named as a defendant in the pending litigation. Union stated that it intended to attempt to establish liability against the Company as the alter ego of, and successor in interest to, its subsidiary and on the basis of a fraudulent conveyance of the subsidiary’s assets, and to seek to pierce the corporate veil between the subsidiary and the Company. The parties settled that lawsuit in June 2007, with the subsidiary having agreed to pay an amount from funds previously received from insurance underwriters, and with no contribution from the Company. Houston-based GlobalSantaFe Corp. is an offshore oil and gas drilling contractor, owning or operating an active fleet of 59 marine drilling rigs. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's fleet included 43 cantilevered jackup rigs, 11 semisubmersibles, three drillships, and two additional semisubmersible rigs the Company operates for third parties under a joint venture agreement. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Units Record 1,303 Suits at Oct. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- GATX Corp., as of Oct. 29, 2007, recorded 1,303 asbestos-related cases pending against its subsidiaries or the former subsidiary where the Company has provided a limited indemnity, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. The Company, as of Feb. 15, 2007, recorded 1,295 asbestos- related cases pending against its subsidiaries or the former subsidiary where the Company has provided limited indemnity. (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007) Several of the Company’s subsidiaries have been named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury relating to asbestos. In these cases, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages based on common law, statutory or premises liability or, in the case of subsidiary American Steamship Co., the Jones Act, which makes limited remedies available to certain maritime employees. In addition, demand has been made against the Company under a limited indemnity given in connection with the sale of a subsidiary by the purchaser for asbestos-related claims filed against the former subsidiary. Out of the total number of 1,303 pending cases, 1,203 are Jones Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC prior to the year 2000. During 2006, 124 new asbestos-related cases were filed and 112 cases were dismissed or settled. During 2005, 22 new cases were filed and 46 cases were dismissed or settled. For this two-year period, the aggregate amount paid to settle asbestos-related cases filed against the Company’s subsidiaries and the former subsidiary was less than US$185,000. Chicago-based GATX Corp. leases, manages, operates and invests in long-lived, widely used assets in the rail, marine and industrial equipment markets. The Company has has three financial reporting segments: Rail, Specialty and American Steamship Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Still Has Pending Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corp. continues to face a large number of pending lawsuits (which include, in many cases, multiple claimants) that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products made and distributed by the Company in the past. While the aggregate number of asbestos-related claims against the Company has declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue. Any such products were encapsulated and used as components of process equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that any significant emission of respirable asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. The Company said it believes that a high percentage of the claims are covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other companies, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. Irving, Tex.-based Flowserve Corp. makes makes pumps, valves, and mechanical seals. The acquisition of Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps (IDP) from Ingersoll-Rand in 2000 made the Company the world's largest provider of pumps for the chemical, petroleum, and power industries. The Company's flow solutions division offers mechanical seals, sealing systems, and repair services to OEMs that make pumps, compressors, and mixers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Faces 25,000 Claims in Six States ---------------------------------------------------------------- One of CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply Co., which distributes industrial supplies, faces about 25,000 asbestos claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi and New Jersey, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the availability of indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time and, in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos cases. For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material. Pittsburgh-based CONSOL Energy Inc. operates as a coal mining company. The Company has some 4.3 billion tons of proved reserves, mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and produces about 70 million tons of coal annually. The Company also engages in natural gas exploration and production. Its proved reserves total 1.3 trillion cu. ft. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Has Unresolved Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caterpillar Inc. faces unresolved legal actions, including asbestos-related, that arise in the normal course of business, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes related to product design, manufacture and performance (including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure), contracts, employment issues or intellectual property rights. Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar Inc. manufactures earthmoving machinery and supplies agricultural equipment. The Company makes construction, mining, and logging machinery; diesel and natural gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and electrical power- generation systems. The Company has plants worldwide and sells its equipment globally via a network of 3,500 locations in 180 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Garcia Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 1, California, upheld the ruling of the San Francisco Superior Court in an asbestos-related action filed by Genaro Garcia and his wife Delia Garcia. Judges Stein, Marchiano, and Margulies entered judgment of Case Nos. A113027 and A113369 on Oct. 16, 2007. The Garcias brought a personal injury and loss of consortium action against numerous defendants, including Duro Dyne Corp., alleging that Mr. Garcia developed mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to products containing asbestos when he worked in the sheet metal industry. The named defendants included: (1) manufacturers including Duro Dyne and Owens-Illinois Inc.; (2) distributors including Thorpe Insulation Co. and Bell Industries Inc., and (3) general contractors including Holmes and Narver Inc. The parties agreed that Bell was sued as successor-in-interest to Reliable Steel Inc., which was a distributor of asbestos- containing products. The Garcias proceeded to trial against two defendants, Duro Dyne and Holmes, after settling with Thorpe for US$675,000, with Bell for US$250,000, and with Owens for US$25,000. The Garcias also entered into smaller settlements totaling US$176,420 with seven defendants, and exchanged releases for mutual cost waivers with 16 other defendants. After a one-month trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Holmes but against Duro Dyne, awarding US$1,605,619.32 to Mr. Garcia for his claims and US$300,000 to Mrs. Garcia for her loss of consortium claim. Mr. Garcia's US$1,605,619.32 award consisted of US$125,369.32 in past medical expenses, US$200,000 in future medical expenses, US$530,250 in nonmedical economic damages and US$750,000 in noneconomic damages. The jury found that Duro Dyne was strictly liable for manufacturing asbestos-containing products and negligent in failing to warn customers or recall their products. The trial court heard various post-trial motions, including Duro Dyne's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the jury's award of future damages, which the court denied. Duro Dyne filed a timely appeal. The Garcias cross-appealed. The Garcias contended the trial court erred in offsetting the jury's economic damages award by US$64,000 for the releases for cost waivers they entered into with 16 defendants. The Appeals Court rejected both parties' contentions on appeal and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Brayton Purcell, Alan R. Brayton, Lloyd F. LeRoy, Gary L. Brayton, represented Genaro Garcia and other Plantiffs and Appellants. Thomas A. Trapani, Adams Nye, Sinunu, Bruni, Becht, Robert M. Channel, Lisa R. Ackley, Dana L. Burch, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall, represented Duro Dyne Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Expenses Total $11.5Mil at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc.’s asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$11.5 million in the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$28.7 million in the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007. The Company’s asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$13.1 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$20.7 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company’s asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$37.5 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$54.3 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. Asbestos liabilities, net of receivables, amounted to US$23.4 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$18.6 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The Company’s current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$64.8 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$71.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$328.6 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$396.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s current asbestos liability amounted to US$86.4 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$88.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s long-term asbestos liability amounted to US$430.3 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$497.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design, development, manufacturing and marketing of well recognized, proprietary engineered industrial products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Still Has 106,500 Open Cases at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc. says that of the 106,500 open asbestos- related cases at Sept. 30, 2007, it is aware of about 9,400 (nine percent) that involve claimants alleging mesothelioma, lung cancer or some other cancer, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007. According to its quarterly report filed with the SEC on Aug. 7, 2007, the Company still faces 106,500 asbestos-related cases filed against it and its subsidiaries. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Co., are among a large number of defendants in actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. Among the products at issue in these actions are industrial sealing products, including gaskets and packing products. The damages claimed vary from action to action, and in some cases plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages. To date, neither Garlock nor Anchor has been required to pay any punitive damage awards. Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed about 900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments, settlements and dismissals) and, together with their insurers, have paid about US$1.3 billion in settlements and judgments and over US$400 million in fees and expenses. Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, about six percent have been claims of plaintiffs with lung or other cancers, and more than 90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-malignant impairment of the respiratory system. The number of new actions filed against the Company’s subsidiaries in 2006 (7,700) was significantly lower than the number filed in 2005 (15,300) and 2004 (17,400). Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Settlement Commitments Total $64M ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc. recorded US$64 million in new asbestos- related settlement commitments for its subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC in the first nine months of 2007, compared with US$59 million in the first nine months of 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007. During the first nine months of 2007, Garlock began seven trials. A Massachusetts jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Garlock. Four lawsuits in Pennsylvania, one in Maryland and another in Washington settled during trial before the juries had reached a verdict. In 2006, Garlock began 10 trials involving 11 plaintiffs. Garlock received jury verdicts in its favor in Oakland, Calif.; Easton, Pa.; and Louisville, Ky. In Pennsylvania, three other lawsuits involving four plaintiffs settled during trial before the juries reached verdict. Garlock also settled cases in Massachusetts, California and Texas during trial. In a retrial of a Kentucky case, the jury awarded the plaintiff US$900,000 against Garlock. The award was significantly less than the US$1.75 million award against Garlock in the previous trial, which Garlock successfully appealed. Garlock has also appealed the new verdict. In addition, Garlock obtained dismissals in two cases in Philadelphia after the juries were selected but before the trials began because there was insufficient evidence of exposure to Garlock products. During 2005, Garlock began 13 trials. Six of these lawsuits settled during the trials. In a mesothelioma case in Texas, the jury returned a defense verdict in Garlock’s favor just after settlement was reached. An Illinois jury and a Washington jury also each returned defense verdicts for Garlock. A Los Angeles jury returned an award to a living mesothelioma claimant, but Garlock was able to settle the claim as part of a large group settlement prior to the entry of judgment. A Baltimore jury returned a verdict of US$10.4 million against Garlock and two other defendants in a mesothelioma case. Garlock’s one-third share was about US$3.5 million. A Dallas jury returned a verdict of US$260,000 in another mesothelioma case. Garlock’s share was about US$10,000, four percent of the total verdict. An Illinois jury in an asbestosis case returned a verdict against Garlock of US$225,000, all of which was offset by settlements with other defendants. The final 2005 trial was the Kentucky case described in the previous paragraph, which resulted in a verdict that was later overturned and subsequently retried in 2006. In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial. The case subsequently settled. On the other hand, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied Garlock’s appeal from the 2005 Baltimore verdict, and Garlock paid that verdict, with post-judgment interest, in the 2006-4th quarter. In a separate Baltimore case in the 2006-4th quarter, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Garlock’s appeal from another 2005 verdict. The subsequent appeal of that decision was also denied and Garlock paid that verdict in the 2007-2nd quarter of 2007. In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned an US$800,000 verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2004, granting a new trial. At Sept. 30, 2007, two Garlock appeals were pending from adverse verdicts totaling US$1.2 million, down from US$6 million at Dec. 31, 2006, and more than US$41 million at Dec. 31, 2005. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had US$1.1 million of cash collateral relating to appeal bonds recorded as restricted cash on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Garlock reduced new settlement commitments from US$180 million in 2000 to US$94 million in 2001, US$86 million in 2002, US$86 million in 2003, US$84 million in 2004, US$79 million in 2005 and US$84 million in 2006. About US$15 million of the 2006 amount was committed in settlements in 2006 to pay verdicts that had been rendered in the years 2003 to 2005. Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $393M Reserve for Future Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc.’s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, at Sept. 30, 2007, had available US$393 million of insurance and trust coverage that the Company believes will be available to cover future asbestos claim and certain expense payments. Garlock, at June 30, 2007, had available US$405 million of insurance and trust coverage. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) In addition, at Sept. 30, 2007, Garlock had US$56 million of otherwise available insurance that the Company classifies as insolvent. Garlock has collected about US$1 million from insolvent carriers in the first nine months of 2007, bringing total collections from insolvent carriers from 2002 through 2007 to about US$39.3 million. During the 2006-4th quarter, the Company reached an agreement with a significant group of related U.S. insurers. These insurers had withheld payments pending resolution of the matter. The agreement provides for the payment of the full amount of the insurance policies (US$194 million) in various annual payments to be made from 2007 through 2018. Under the agreement, Garlock received US$22 million during the first nine months of 2007. In May 2006, the Company reached agreement with a U.S. insurer that resolved two lawsuits and an arbitration proceeding. Under the settlement, Garlock received US$4 million in December 2006 and will receive another US$17 million in the future. As part of the agreement, Garlock agreed to forgo US$19 million of nominal insurance. During the 2005-1st quarter, the Company reached agreement with two of Garlock’s U.S. insurers. The insurers agreed to pay Garlock a total of US$21 million in three equal bi-annual payments of US$7 million. The first payment was received in May 2005; the second was received in April 2007. The third payment is due in May 2009. In the 2004-2nd quarter, the Company reached agreement with Equitas, the London-based entity responsible for the pre-1993 Lloyds’ of London policies in the Company’s insurance block, concerning settlement of its exposure to the Company’s subsidiaries’ asbestos claims. As a result of the settlement, US$88 million was placed in an independent trust. In the 2004-4th quarter, the Company reached agreement with a group of London market carriers (other than Equitas) and one of its U.S. carriers that has some policies reinsured through the London market. As a result of the settlement, US$55.5 million was placed in an independent trust. At Sept. 30, 2007, the market value of the funds remaining in the two trusts was US$44 million, which was included in the US$393 million of insurance and trust coverage available to pay future asbestos-related claims and expenses. The Company currently estimates that the liability of its subsidiaries for the indemnity cost of resolving asbestos claims for the next 10 years will be US$511 million. The estimated liability of US$511 million is before any tax benefit and is not discounted to present value, and it does not include fees and expenses, which are recorded as incurred. During the 2007-3rd quarter, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge to income of US$11.5 million to reflect net cash outlays of US$5.9 million for legal fees and expenses incurred during the quarter, and a US$5.6 million non-cash charge primarily to add an estimate of the liability for the 2017-3rd quarter to maintain a 10-year estimate. For the first nine months of 2007, the Company has recorded pre- tax charges to income of US$37.5 to reflect net cash outlays of US$19.6 million of legal fees and expenses and a US$17.9 million non-cash charge primarily to add an estimate of the liability for the first nine months of 2017. Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Liability Totals $516.7M at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc.’s total liability at Sept. 30, 2007 was US$516.7 million, which is the Company’s estimate of a US$510.5 million liability plus US$6.2 million of accrued legal and other fees already incurred but not yet paid, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007. This amount includes US$94.9 million for advanced-stage cases, settled claims and accrued legal and other fees, and US$421.8 million for early-stage and unasserted claims. The recorded amounts do not include legal fees and expenses to be incurred in the future. The recorded amounts include US$86.4 million classified in current liabilities and US$430.3 million classified in non-current liabilities. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had remaining solvent insurance and trust coverage of US$393.4 million which is reflected on its balance sheet as a receivable (US$64.8 million classified in current assets and US$328.6 million classified in non-current assets) and which it believes will be available for the payment of asbestos-related claims. Included in the receivable is US$246.6 million in insured claims and expenses that the Company’s subsidiaries have paid out in excess of amounts recovered from insurance. These amounts are recoverable under the Company’s insurance policies and have been billed to the insurance carriers. The remaining US$146.8 million will be available for pending and future claims. Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Losses & ALAE Total $320.7M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.’s asbestos-related net unpaid losses and allocated loss adjustment expenses amounted to US$320,686,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$341,927,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The Company’s asbestos-related net unpaid losses and ALAE amounted to US$328,954,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$356,787,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company’s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and ALAE amounted to US$410,184,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$422,367,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The Company’s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and ALAE amounted to US$421,380,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$441,752,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental claims arising from the sale of general liability, commercial multi- peril and umbrella insurance policies, the majority of which were written for accident years 1985 and prior. Estimation of ultimate liabilities for these exposures is unusually difficult due to such issues as whether or not coverage exists, definition of an occurrence, determination of ultimate damages and allocation of such damages to financially responsible parties. Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is 100 percent owned by Fairfax Inc., which is ultimately owned by Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers a range of commercial property and casualty insurance distributed through an independent producer force located across the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelly-Moore Coverage Action Ongoing v. Crum ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is in litigation with Kelly-Moore Paint Company Inc. in connection with certain general liability and umbrella liability policies issued to Kelly-Moore, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. Filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, the litigation seeks coverage for bodily injury claims arising out of exposure to asbestos-containing products that Kelly-Moore and a subsidiary sold between 1960 and 1978. It also seeks breach of contract and bad faith damages. In May 2006, Kelly-Moore filed a second amended complaint seeking to recover from the Company defense costs it allegedly paid to defend asbestos claims. Kelly-Moore also seeks payment of sums for contribution and subrogation under three other excess insurers’ assigned claims based on defense payments allegedly made on Kelly-Moore’s behalf. The Company has learned through discovery and submissions to the court filed by Kelly-Moore that Kelly-Moore is seeking US$53 million for the defense costs, plus interest, and an additional US$33 million for the contribution/subrogation claims. Kelly-Moore also seeks to recover extra-contractual damages as part of its bad faith claim. The Company filed a cross-complaint against Kelly-Moore seeking reimbursement of certain substantial loss and expense payments made to or on behalf of Kelly-Moore to date. Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is 100 percent owned by Fairfax Inc., which is ultimately owned by Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers a full range of commercial property and casualty insurance distributed through an independent producer force located across the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. ConEd, Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison Inc. says that asbestos-related suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against its Utilities (Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc.) and many other defendants, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1, 2007. In the suits, a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars. However, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10 million. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers’ compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers’ compensation claims. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company’s accrued liability for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers’ compensation amounted to US$120 million, and its regulatory assets for workers’ compensation amounted to US$45 million. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company’s accrued liability for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million, its accrued liability for worker’s compensation amounted to US$117 million, and its regulatory assets for workers’ compensation amounted to US$42 million. At Sept. 30, 2007, Con Edison of New York’s accrued liability for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers’ compensation amounted to US$115 million, and its regulatory assets for workers’ compensation amounted to US$42 million. New York-based Consolidated Edison Inc.’s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to more than one million customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland Utilities serves almost 421,000 electric and gas customers in three states. The Company’s nonutility operations include retail and wholesale energy marketing, independent power production, and infrastructure project development. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $19Mil Costs for N.Y. Incident ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, with respect to a July 2007 pipe explosion, incurred estimated of US$19 million for property damage, cleanup and other response costs. The Company also invested US$11 million in capital, retirement and other costs. In July 2007, a Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. The cause of the rupture is being investigated. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. Several plaintiffs have sued the Company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies currently in force will cover most of the Company’s costs, which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the incident. New York-based Consolidated Edison Inc.’s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to more than one million customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland Utilities serves almost 421,000 electric and gas customers in three states. The Company’s nonutility operations include retail and wholesale energy marketing, independent power production, and infrastructure project development. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tube City IMS Has Claims from Old Ventures ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tube City IMS Corp. has been named as a defendant in certain asbestos-related claims relating to lines of business that were discontinued over 20 years ago, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. Two non-operating subsidiaries of the Predecessor Company, along with a landfill and waste management business, were spun-off to the Company's former stockholders in October 2002. The two former subsidiaries were subject to asbestos related personal injury claims. Management said it believes that the Company has no obligation for asbestos related claims regarding the spun-off subsidiaries. Management said it believes that the Company is sufficiently protected by insurance with respect to these asbestos-related claims related to these former lines of business. Glassport, Pa.-based Tube City IMS Corp. provides outsourced services to steel mills in North America with an emerging presence globally. The Company has operations at 68 sites in North America and Europe. Its primary services offered include slag processing and metal recovery services, scrap management and scrap preparation, raw materials procurement, surface conditioning and scrap optimization. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Cites $2.6M Removal Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Properties Group Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, has accrued US$2.6 million for future asbestos-related removal costs, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. The Company, as of June 30, 2007, has accrued US$3 million for future asbestos-related removal costs. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) With respect to asbestos materials present at the Company’s City National Plaza property, these materials have been removed or abated from certain tenant and common areas of the building structure. The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos materials from various areas of the building structure. Los Angeles-based Thomas Properties Group Inc. invests in, develops, and manages multifamily, office, and retail real estate. The firm owns or manages some 20 properties in California, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. Thomas Properties' preferred strategy is to utilize investment partnerships for acquisitions. Its largest tenant is Conrail, which accounts for some 20 percent of the Company's rental income. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int’l. Units Still Face Miss. Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain subsidiaries of Pride International Inc., since August 2004, have been named in several asbestos-related complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. The suits were filed by several hundred individuals that allege that they were employed by some of the named defendants between about 1965 and 1986. Additional suits have been filed since August 2004. The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used products containing asbestos in offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment. The plaintiffs assert claims based on negligence and strict liability and claims under the Jones Act. The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos that are the subject of the complaints. The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Eight individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been identified as allegedly having worked for the Company or one of its affiliates or predecessors. In August 2007, the special master overseeing the various suits identified 60 plaintiffs whose cases could proceed to formal discovery and possible trial. One of the 60 plaintiffs identified the Company or one of its affiliates or predecessors as a former employer. As of this time, the Company does not know when or if the claim by this plaintiff will proceed to trial. Currently, none of the other eight individuals identified as allegedly having worked for the Company or one of its affiliates or predecessors have been selected for discovery and possible trial. Discovery and investigation are ongoing to determine whether these individuals were employed in the Company’s offshore operations during the alleged period of exposure. Houston-based Pride International Inc. is an international provider of contract drilling services. The Company provides contract drilling services to oil and natural gas exploration and production companies through the operation and management of 61 offshore rigs and seven land drilling rigs. The Company also has two ultra-deepwater drillships under construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Lawsuits v. Mine Safety Rise to 260 ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 10 percent of the 2,600 product liability lawsuits, pending against Mine Safety Appliances Co. are related to asbestos or combined injuries, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. Collectively, these lawsuits represent a total of about 16,500 plaintiffs. About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging they suffer from silicosis. These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted in part from respirators that were negligently designed or manufactured by the Company. Consistent with the experience of other companies involved in silica and asbestos-related litigation, in recent years there has been an increase in the number of asserted claims that could potentially involve the Company. The Company cannot determine its potential maximum liability for such claims, in part because the defendants in these lawsuits are often numerous, and the claims generally do not specify the amount of damages sought. About 10 percent of the 2,500 product liability lawsuits, or 250 cases, pending against the Company were related to asbestos or combined injuries. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Co. makes protective equipment for workers in the military, as well as the fire service, construction, homeland security industries, and miners. The Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas masks, and head protection gear, much of which carries the MSA brand. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety in Dispute w/ Century Indemnity ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mine Safety Appliances Co. is involved in coverage litigation with Century Indemnity Co., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. Century filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey seeking a declaration of Century’s obligations with respect to certain asbestos, silica and other claims under five insurance policies issued to the Company by Century. The New Jersey Superior Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss this case. Century has appealed that order. The Company has sued Century in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pa., alleging that Century breached the five insurance policies by failing to pay amounts owing to the Company. The Pennsylvania court has denied a motion by Century to stay or dismiss the Pennsylvania lawsuit in favor of the New Jersey action and the Pennsylvania action is proceeding. Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Co. makes protective equipment for workers in the military, as well as the fire service, construction, homeland security industries, and miners. The Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas masks, and head protection gear, much of which carries the MSA brand. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Continues to Face Asbestos Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Manitowoc Company Inc. continues to be involved in numerous lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of numerous defendants, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. After taking into consideration legal counsel’s evaluation of those actions, the current political environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the liabilities accrued with respect to those matters, in the opinion of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. Based in Manitowoc, Wis., The Manitowoc Company Inc. makes ice- making, beverage-dispensing, and refrigerating products, as well as cranes and other material-handling equipment. The Company sells its boom cranes, tower cranes, telescopic cranes, and related equipment to companies in the construction and mining industries. The Company also has a marine segment with shipyards that build, service, and repair commercial and military vessels. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Records $7M for Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd., for the three and nine month periods ended Sept. 30, 2007, recorded about US$7 million as total costs for settlement of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded about US$8 million for settlement of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) For the three and nine month periods ended Sept. 30, 2007, total costs for defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were about US$27 million. For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded about US$20 million for defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. Most of those claims has been filed against Ingersoll-Rand Co. (IR-New Jersey), and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain of IR-New Jersey’s products. Although IR-New Jersey was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, some of its formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-containing components, such as gaskets purchased from third-party suppliers. All asbestos-related claims resolved to date have been dismissed or settled. Hamilton, Bermuda-based Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd., with about 100 plants worldwide, makes refrigeration equipment (Thermo King, Hussmann) used mostly in trucks and supermarkets, locks and security systems (Schlage, Kryptonite), construction equipment (Bobcat skid steers, light towers, portable compressors), industrial equipment (generators, turbines, and the like), and heavy equipment and golf carts (Compact Vehicle Technologies). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Houston Wire ---------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Co., along with many other defendants, still faces a number of lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate. In addition, the Company maintains general liability insurance that has applied to these claims. To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of these claims has been handled by the applicable insurance companies. Houston Wire & Cable Co., through its wholly owned subsidiaries, HWC Wire & Cable Co., Advantage Wire & Cable, and Cable Management Services Inc., distributes specialty electrical wire and cable to the U.S. electrical distribution market through 11 locations in 10 states throughout the United States. The Company is headquartered in Houston. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Settlement Looming After ASARCO Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASARCO LLC, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, the Future Claims Representative, and other parties-in-interest attended a three- day initial mediation session from Oct. 29, 2007 to Oct. 31, 2007, in New Orleans before the Court-appointed mediator, Judge Elizabeth W. Magner of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. ASARCO LLC told Judge Richard Schmidt, at a Nov. 9, 2007 hearing, that it is "very, very close" to reaching agreement in mediation on a term sheet for settlement of its asbestos claims, Bloomberg News reports. To recall, ASARCO LLC, in March 2007, estimated that its asbestos liabilities total US$242,100,000 to US$446,900,000. Asarco Inc., ASARCO LLC's parent, said ASARCO LLC's asbestos liabilities total no more than US$490,300,000. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for ASARCO LLC provided the lowest estimate, asserting that ASARCO LLC's asbestos liabilities total no more than US$180,000,000. The Asbestos Committee and the FCR estimate ASARCO LLC's asbestos liabilities to be between US$906,000,000 and US$2,655,000,000. An estimation hearing on ASARCO LLC's asbestos liabilities is scheduled to begin on Jan. 2, 2008. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 59; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Mt. McKinley, Everest Proceeds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Before the Aug. 9, 2005 Petition Date, Asarco Inc., CAPCO Pipe Company Inc., and Lac d'Amiante du Quebec Ltee., filed a lawsuit against Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. and Everest Reinsurance Co. and a number of other insurers in the 105th Judicial District Court, Nueces County, Tex., for coverage determination with respect to asbestos-related claims under insurance policies. ASARCO and Mt. Kinley and Everest settled the dispute and agreed that all claims asserted against Mt. McKinley and Everest were dismissed with prejudice. In April 2007, ASARCO LLC and the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors commenced an adversary proceeding against Mt. McKinley and Everest and other insurers seeking recovery of the alleged value of releases purported to have been made under the prepetition settlement agreement. In August 2007, the Debtors commenced another adversary proceeding against Mt. McKinley and Everest seeking a declaration that certain transfers allegedly made to Mt. McKinley and Everest are void and a recovery of the alleged value of the transfers to have been made under prepetition settlement agreements. On June 28, 2007, the Debtors filed a notice supplementing their Bar Date service lists, which included an amended Schedule F of their Schedules of Assets and Liabilities. The Amended Schedule F noted that certain insurance companies including Mt. McKinley and Everest are potential creditors of the Debtors' estates. The Supplemental Bar Date Notice stated that the additional potential creditors have until Aug. 27, 2007, to file any proofs of claim based on the potential claims. Mt. McKinley and Everest did not file a proof of claim before the Aug. 27, 2007 Bar Date because they did not discover the Supplemental Bar Date Notice until about Oct. 16, 2007, Daniel F. Patchin, at McLain & Patchin, P.C., in Houston, tells the Court. According to Mr. Patchin, Mt. McKinley and Everest have no formal involvement in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases until the Adversary Proceedings were commenced. After the Adversary Proceedings were filed, Mt. Kinley and Everest began a more comprehensive review and analysis of the main bankruptcy case including a review of all pleadings filed. Only then did Mt. McKinley and Everest find the Supplemental Bar Date, Mr. Patchin notes. Counsel for both Mt. McKinley and Everest both reviewed their records to determine whether the notice had been served on them but found that neither had received the notice, Mr. Patchin says. Accordingly, Mt. McKinley and Everest seek the Court's permission to file a late claim against the Debtors. Mr. Patchin asserts that Mt. McKinley and Everest's failure to file proofs of claim on the August 27 Bar Date constitutes excusable neglect. He adds that the length of delay in filing is negligible. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 59; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling v. Ford, Merck ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 7, California, reversed a summary judgment ruling that was in favor of Ford Motor Co. and Merck & Co. Inc., in an asbestos-related action filed by Eileen Honer. Judges Woods, Perluss, and Johnson entered judgment of Case No. B189160 on Oct. 15, 2007. Mrs. Honer's case was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. In her October 2004 complaint, Mrs. Honer alleged that her father Joseph Mara and brother Joseph Mara, Jr. worked as insulators at job sites including the Merck facility in Rahway, N.J., and at the Lincoln-Mercury plant in Metuchen, N.J. As a result, Joseph Mara and Joseph Mara, Jr. were exposed to asbestos-containing products which caused their clothing, bodies, vehicles and tools to be contaminated with asbestos fibers. Mrs. Honer then breathed these asbestos fibers because of her direct and indirect contact with her father and brother themselves as well as their clothes, vehicles, tools and general surroundings. In July 2004, Mrs. Honer alleged, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma caused by her exposure to asbestos-containing products. According to Mrs. Honer's complaint, Merck and Ford caused the release of respirable asbestos fibers by their own workers as well as various contractors on Merck and Ford premises. Mrs. Honer moved to California in 1956 and lived in California from that date forward. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ford on the ground that the New Jersey statute of repose barred the action and for Merck on the ground that the defendant owed no duty to Ms. Honer who had never been to the work site. Mrs. Honer appealed. Because summary judgment was not properly granted as to either defendant, the Appeals Court reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to enter new and different orders denying the motions for summary judgment and placing this matter back on the civil active list. Waters & Kraus, Paul C. Cook, and Michael B. Gurien represented Eileen Honer. Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons, Farrise & Greenwood and Steven Kazan as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Eileen Honer. Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner, Daven G. Lowhurst and Paul V. Lankford represented Ford Motor Co. Jackson & Wallace, Gabriel A. Jackson, Todd M. Thacker and Christine A. Huntoon represented Merck & Co. Inc. Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Kevin Underhill as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jambon Action v. Northrop Grumman Remanded ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana, granted Doris Rita Buffone Jambon's motion to remand, in an asbestos related action filed against Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Inc.. f/k/a Avondale Industries Inc., a privately owned shipyard that constructed both military and commercial vessels. The case was remanded to Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon entered judgment of Civil Action No. 07-6056 on Oct. 10, 2007. Mrs. Jambon suffers from mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos brought home from work on the clothes of her husband, Mason Jambon, and her two sons Billy and Bobby. The three Jambon men were employed by Northrop Grumman. Mrs. Jambon filed a petition for damages in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, against Avondale and multiple other defendants. Avondale removed the case to federal court, alleging jurisdiction under the federal officers removal statute. Mrs. Jambon filed a motion to remand. Accordingly, the District Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, and the motion to remand the case to state court is granted. Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Jonathan Brett Clement, Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Roussel, Laplace, La., represented Doris Rita Buffone Jambon. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Able UK Holdings to Pay GBP22T for Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Able UK Holdings Ltd., the parent company to Able UK and Alab Environmental Services (AES), on Nov. 13, 2007, was fined GBP22,000 for failing to appropriately treat asbestos waste in line with petroleum regulations, MoreThanWaste reports. The Company, which received planning permission to dismantle the so-called American "ghost ships," pleaded guilty at Hartlepool Magistrates Court on two counts. The prosecution was brought by the Environment Agency and related to asbestos disposal operations at the Seaton Meadows Landfill Site, Hartlepool, England, which is operated by AES, though the permit for the site is understood to be held by Able UK. The Court heard that in October 2005, a visiting Agency official found that the main tipping area for asbestos had broken bonded asbestos in it and a machine was moving the material. According to Trevor Cooper, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, there was no apparent dampening of the materials to prevent asbestos fibers being released. An Agency officer again visited the site in January 2006 and found similar activities. Able UK holdings admitted the offense, but in mitigation said that the first was due to difficulties in obtaining cover material because of equipment breakdown. On the second occasion a sub-contractor failed to follow site safety instructions. In October 2007, Able UK obtained planning approval to dispose of four redundant U.S. Navy warships moored near Hartlepool. Hartlepool Council had originally rejected the application against the advice of its officers and with other issues this led to delay in the planning approval for several years. The effect of the delay was that Able UK lost part of its contract for a further nine vessels to be dismantled and it is understood that the Company is seeking to recover costs of up to GBP1 million from the Council. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liverpool Pays Over GBP250,000 in 18 Months ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Daily Post reveals that more than GBP250,000 has been paid out in asbestos compensation claims by Liverpool City Council in the past 18 months, Liverpool Echo reports. The payouts related to four claims dating back as far as the 1960s, but it has raised concerns that the council may have left itself vulnerable to a raft of future claims because it was providing “inadequate” information and training on asbestos management. On Nov. 14, 2007, it was reported the Health and Safety Executive had issued an enforcement notice to the council demanding it gives proper training on asbestos to staff that manage buildings. It has led to almost 800 staff being fast- tracked on a training course on how to properly manage asbestos. A city solicitor who specializes in asbestos claims said local authorities needed to have in place adequate safeguards or there could be “a deadly legacy for the future.” Labor leader Joe Anderson warned that the GBP250,000 could be the “tip-of-the-iceberg” in relation to claims that could come in future. The council said four claims related to a period of time when the understanding of the dangers of asbestos were not understood as well as today. The council disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act that between April 2006 and March 2007 the council paid out a total of GBP70,000 for two claims. One from a joiner, who alleged exposure before 1960, and the other a boilerman, who alleged exposure from 1963 to 1969. Since April 2007, the council has paid out GBP184,700 in respect of two claims, from joiners. These claims related to exposure from 1963 to 1969 and 1972 to 1974. Kevin Johnson, of John Pickering solicitors, who is dealing with a number of claims relating to the council, said, “If they have not been adequately implementing regulations, and as a result people are being exposed, it does raise concerns.” Mr. Johnson has a number of cases ongoing with the council and said some result in six-figure pay-outs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Aftermath of London Fire ---------------------------------------------------------------- The fire service in London confirmed that asbestos has been found on the site of the Nov. 12, 2007 London blaze, Building reports. The site is at a warehouse on Waterden Road, on the edge of the 2012 Olympic site in Hackney Wick. The Health Protection Agency has warned the public not to touch any material that may have come from the fire. Up to 75 firefighters and six fire engines are believed to have attended the fire. The Olympic Delivery Authority is investigating the fire, although it is thought that the blaze was an accident rather than arson. The area around the blaze was evacuated, although work continued on the remainder of the site. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wyo. Farmer Sues 98 Companies in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Hawley, a farmer from Wyoming, on Nov. 2, 2007, sued 98 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., claiming that the companies are responsible for his mesothelioma, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Hawley was employed from 1946 to 1999 as a farmer/rancher at various locations throughout the States of Illinois, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Mr. Hawley claims he was diagnosed with the fatal disease on July 1, 2007, and asserts his exposure to asbestos fibers was completely foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated by the defendants. Some of the defendants include Bondex, CBS Corp., Chrysler, Ford Motor Co., General Electric Co., General Motors Corp., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., John Crane Inc., John Deere, MetLife Inc., Owens-Illinois Inc., Royal Philips Electronics N.V., Union Carbide Corp., and Western Auto. Mr. Hawley 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. Mr. Hawley 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. Hawley 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. Hawley also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Hawley claims he was exposed to fibers containing asbestos. The complaint states that, Mr. Hawley developed a disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him. He seeks damages to help pay for the cost of treatment. The complaint states that Mr. Hawley 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. Hawley also claims that he has sought, but 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. Hawley claims 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. Hawley seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$300,000, plus punitive damages. He is represented by Tim Thompson and G. Michael Stewart of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. Case No. 07 L 950 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Reconsider Dana Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A committee representing asbestos-personal creditors in Dana Corp.'s bankruptcy has asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan to throw out the Company's settlements with 7,500 asbestos creditors unless the Company provides more details on the agreements, The Associated Press reports. In papers filed Nov. 8, 2007 the Bankruptcy Court, the ad hoc committee said Dana's settlement proposal could provide for "more favorable treatment" for asbestos creditors who opt to settle their claims before the Company's Chapter 11 reorganization plan is confirmed. The committee said, “The ad hoc committee and other parties in interest are entitled to full disclosure of all of the terms of the proposed settlements by reviewing the actual settlement agreements and should not be limited to relying on (Dana's) description of some of the terms of the settlements.” If Dana agrees to provide more details on the settlements, the committee asked the bankruptcy court to delay a hearing on the proposed settlement to give it time to review the settlements. In October 2007, the Company reached a deal to pay 7,500 asbestos-personal injury claimants a total of US$2 million to resolve their lawsuits stemming from the Company's asbestos- containing automotive gaskets. The Company has said asbestos-related personal-injury claims, which totaled 150,000 as of June 30, 2007, will pass through its bankruptcy unchanged. However, the company said many of the claimants have not become sick. According to court papers, about seven percent of the asbestos claims filed against Dana allege mesothelioma or cancer. The Toledo, Ohio-based Company is trying to exit bankruptcy protection under a reorganization plan that calls for unsecured creditors to recover between 72 percent and 86 percent on their claims. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Covers Asbestos at Ill. Dairy Farm Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- Officials say that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is covering asbestos contamination at a former dairy farm to prevent it from becoming a problem for residents, officials say, Observer-Dispatch reports. Kristen Skopeck, EPA Region 2 public affairs specialist said that the contamination at 3720 Southside Road does not present an imminent danger, but officials want to avoid possible problems from wind blowing the asbestos, people walking on it or water causing it to run into the nearby Mohawk River. Ms. Skopeck said that negotiations and possible litigation to determine the responsible parties, who would have to pay for the cleanup, must be completed before EPA officials receive authorization to determine the next step. Frankfort, Ill., resident John Dickan lives only a few miles from the site and thinks the asbestos should be removed in case it can spread through the air. The site is about 1.25 miles northwest of Frankfort on Southside Road, a heavily traveled highway between Ilion and Utica. Surrounding land is either farmland or residential. About 2,537 people live within a half-mile of the site, according to the EPA. Cathy Downes almost daily visits her friend who lives near the site. The friend babysits for one of Downes’ children. The 1.75-acre contamination site is part of a 192-acre former dairy farm owned by Cross Nicastro. A pile of shredded building debris, 50,000 square feet in size and up to 20 feet high, is located at the site. On this pile are 12 to 15 smaller piles of the same material, according to the EPA. Interim work will consist of leveling the smaller debris piles and installing a synthetic liner cover over the area to prevent the migration of asbestos. A security fence also will be installed around the area, according to the EPA. According to the EPA, the action should be completed in a month. Funding from the EPA will cover the US$120,000 interim solution, Ms. Skopeck said. The responsible party likely will have to cover the costs of the next step and pay back the interim costs, she added. Frankfort town Supervisor Joseph Kinney said he understands the EPA’s plan to first take interim measures because a responsible party must be determined before further action. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More Asbestos Suits Filed v. Cayuga County ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cayuga County Democratic Election Commissioner Dennis Sedor filed two lawsuits against the county on the illegal removal of asbestos in the county Board of Elections building, the latest in a string of legal complaints filed against the county in connection with the scandal, The Citizen reports. Mr. Sedor, an Auburn, N.Y. attorney, filed suit on behalf of himself and Board of Elections worker John Breanick, arguing they were both exposed to cancer-causing asbestos in the workplace after an old boiler was improperly removed from the basement of the building in February 2006. Suspended county carpenter John Chick pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Air Act earlier in 2007 for his role in illegally removing asbestos from the building's basement during a boiler replacement project. Mr. Chick remains on the county payroll pending the outcome of a hearing on his employment status. His legal sentence is pending in federal court. In testimony given as part of his case, Cayuga County Legislature Chairman George Fearon said he first knew about the asbestos removal in June 2006, a month before the public or employees at the Board of Elections building were notified. However, the former superintendent of buildings and grounds for the county, Ernie DeCaro, has testified that he told Mr. Fearon about the situation in February 2006. Mr. DeCaro has admitted knowing about Mr. Chick's illegal activity while it was going on, but said he did nothing because he did not want to become involved in the case. Several other lawsuits in connection with the case were previously filed on behalf of county employees, including Republican Election Commissioner Cherl Heary and deputy commissioners Thomas Prystal and Deborah Calarco, as well as members of the public who did business in the building, and county jail inmates who performed the demolition work that broke up asbestos-laden pipes. Both suits filed by Mr. Sedor complain that asbestos exposure in the building was a result of “outrageous, illegal, unlawful, willful, reckless, negligent and grossly negligent” acts by the county, its employees and elected officials. The suits seek, in part, unspecified actual and compensatory damages, punitive damages and legal fees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Files Class Action Lawsuit v. County ---------------------------------------------------------------- Auburn, N.Y. Lawyer Carl J. DePalma filed a fourth class-action lawsuit against Cayuga County on the illegal removal and disposal of asbestos in 2006, The Post-Standard reports. On Nov. 2, 2007, Mr. DePalma filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven members of the general public who were exposed to asbestos during visits to the county's Board of Elections building on Court Street. Mr. DePalma already has filed lawsuits on behalf of a former county employee ordered to remove the asbestos, a group of county inmates ordered to work on the project and a group of county employees exposed to asbestos at work. Mr. DePalma said that the four legal actions could take 12 to 18 months to work their way through the courts. Each of the lawsuits seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages from the county. New Securities Fraud Cases BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a Class Action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE: BBX) between November 9, 2005 and October 25, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges BankAtlantic and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial performance caused BankAtlantic's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants issued misleading, positive statements about the Company's land acquisition and development loan portfolio. Defendants also made numerous claims in press releases and public filings that the Company had significantly increased its commercial real estate loan portfolio, but failed to disclose a $27.8 million non-performing loan. On April 25, 2007, BankAtlantic issued a partial disclosure -- announcing that the Company would likely suffer an impairment to its loan portfolio because of a non-performing asset. Then, on October 25, 2007, the Company announced the full extent of its loan losses and real estate impairments, including non- performing loans which had increased, from $21.8 million on June 30, 2007, to $165.4 million on September 30, 2007, primarily the result of eleven commercial real estate loans totaling $148.7 million placed in non-accrual status. As a result of this news, the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40 percent. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 28, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. BankAtlantic operates as the holding company for a Florida- chartered bank which offers consumer and commercial banking services in Florida, including commercial demand deposit accounts, retail demand deposit accounts, savings accounts, money market accounts, certificates of deposit, and individual retirement accounts. For more information, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esquire Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Toll Free: (888) 773-9224 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com Website: http://www.glancylaw.com FUWEI FILMS: Weiss & Lurie Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Weiss & Lurie has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Fuwei Films (Holdings) Co., Ltd. and certain individuals and underwriters associated with the Company. The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of shares pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about December 19, 2006 ("IPO") and through November 12, 2007. The complaint charges Fuwei, certain of its executives and underwriters with violations of Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or omitted material information regarding the Company and its business operations. This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased Fuwei securities. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 18, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Mark D. Smilow James E. Tullman David C. Katz Weiss & Lurie Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 e-mail: infony@weisslurie.com WSB FINANCIAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The class action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired the common stock of WSB Financial Group, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering of WSB Financial common stock on December 14, 2006 and through and including October 23, 2007. The complaint alleges that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO misrepresented: the standards by which WSB Financial conducted, originated, administered and monitored construction and mortgage loans; its compliance with applicable laws; and its financial condition. As such it is alleged that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On October 23, 2007, WSB Financial disclosed that certain deficiencies were identified in various lending products and practices. WSB Financial further disclosed that regulators were scrutinizing "the application, processing and approval of certain loans previously made." On this news, WSB Financial's stock fell dramatically over the next two trading days, from a closing price of $11.56 a share on October 23, 2007 to a closing price of $4.73 a share on October 25, 2007, on unusually high trading volume. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 31, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. Stephanie E. Kirwan, Esq. Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP Phone: 1-800-721-3900 E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or skirwan@zsz.com WYETH INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Wyeth securities between January 31, 2006 and July 24, 2007. The complaint charges Wyeth and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Wyeth is a leading pharmaceutical company and maintains a large business in women's health care products. According to the complaint, from 2003 to 2006, Wyeth conducted Phase 3 clinical trials on its new drug, Pristiq for postmenopausal symptoms of hot flashes and night sweats. In June 2006, Wyeth announced that it had submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for this indication. The complaint alleges that defendants' statements regarding Pristiq were materially false and misleading when made because defendants concealed negative data regarding Pristiq's hepatic and cardiovascular effects. On July 24, 2007, Wyeth announced that it received an approvable letter from the FDA for Pristiq. In its letter, the FDA said that before the application could be approved, it would be necessary for Wyeth to provide additional data regarding the potential for serious adverse cardiovascular and hepatic effects associated with the use of Pristiq in this indication. The FDA requested that these data come from a randomized, placebo- controlled clinical trial of a duration of one year or more conducted in postmenopausal women. After the announcement of the FDA committee's decision, Wyeth's stock price dropped from $56 to $50.30 the next day. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Wyeth securities during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman David A. Rosenfeld Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 E-mail: djr@csgrr.com ********* 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 * * *