/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071130.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 30, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 238 Headlines AMCOR LTD: Sydney Federal Court Adds Visy in Price-Fixing Suit BC FERRIES: Suit Over 2006 Sinking Granted Partial Certification BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Settles Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit BODEE LLC: Recalls Aminotadalafil-Containing Dietary Tabs CANADA: Accused of Illegally Withholding Part of Fishing Quotas CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Reliant Settles Market Manipulation Cases CENTERPOINT ENERGY: 5th Circuit Hears Appeal in Tex. ERISA Suit CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Natural Gas Measurement Lawsuits DICK'S SPORTING: Recalls Recliners with Brackets than can Break ENTROPIN INC: Cal. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set March EV3 INC: Still Faces Suit in Del. Over Plan to Buy MTI Shares IKANOS COMMS: Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit INDIANA: Housing Partnership Settles Fraud Lawsuit for $2.4M MICROSOFT CORP: Class Status Requested in "Windows Vista” Suit MISSOURI: Suit Aiming to Block MOHELA Asset Sale Dismissed NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Discount Fees Fraudulent, Mass. Suit Claims NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Pa. PARMALAT SPA: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Block U.S. Lawsuit PRESIDENT GLOBAL: Recalls Ice Cream Bars with Undeclared Milk SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Considers Pending Motions in Price I SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Considers Pending Motions in Price II TELLABS INC: 7th Circuit Hears Appeal in Ill. Securities Suit TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Medical Malpractice Suits in La. THANE INTERNATIONAL: Securities Suit Remanded to Calif. Court WELLS FARGO: Sued in Calif. Over Unnecessary Overdraft Charges YRC WORLDWIDE: Faces Suits Over Fuel Surcharges in LTL Shipments ZIEMAN MANUFACTURING: Settles Suit Over Toy Hauler Trailers * Lawyer R. Michael Underwood Joins Fowler White in Florida Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Mayle Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Active Claims v. Dana Drop to 55T at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Energy Unit Has Exposure Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.87B at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ampco Drop to 8,274 at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Records 826 W.Va. Claims at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reserves $3.061B for Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Trial Court Ruling Upheld in CIC Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kans. Court Issues Split Ruling in ACE Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records 460 Damage Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending v. W.R. Grace ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $917M Excess Coverage at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $267.1M Mont. Liability at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Spends $11.2M for Libby Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Action v. Grace, 2 Ex-Employees Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Third-Party Actions Pending v. Liggett ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Faces 507 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Faces 54 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has 3,430 Cases at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Park-Ohio Rise to 385 in Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $269.9M Losses, LAE at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in 29 States Pending v. IDEX, 5 Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Faces Lawsuits From Old Operations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Has 26,376 Injury Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims Pending v. General Motors ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CEAC to Pay French Agency $300T for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Corp. Incurs $63M Losses at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation Still Has 535 Claims at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Corp. Subject to Liability Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Faces Liability Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.4M Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AON Corp. Has $71M Liabilities at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: XL Gains From $13M Strengthening of Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Holds Sinnott Case Appealable ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Set to Appeal $2M Dana Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Magner Assigned to ASARCO Estimation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Wabtec ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Actions Pending v. United Industrial ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Unit Has 4,500 Injury Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Tenneco ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Hotels Accrues $1M for Abatement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Products Unit Has 97 Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren Records 76 Pending Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Pending v. Essex Int'l. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Limle Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Inc. Faces Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. Parker Drilling Ongoing in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Records 14T Claims at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M & F Worldwide Incurs $1M Costs for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Faces 31 Lawsuits at Oct. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Victim Gets Payout Days Before Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Calls for an SA Specialist Tribunal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Settles Case with Aussie Campaigner ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.M. Best Sees $65B Total Incurred Losses ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Still Has Compensation Issues ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dukeminster Accused of Negligence in Devon ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Gov't. Bldg. in Cyprus Continues New Securities Fraud Cases ERICSSON LM: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit LDK SOLAR: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. LEAP WIRELESS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit ********* AMCOR LTD: Sydney Federal Court Adds Visy in Price-Fixing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Brian Tamberlin in Sydney granted an application by law firm Maurice Blackburn to add Visys Industries to a $300 million class action against rival Amcor Ltd. Maurice Blackburn is representing the victims of a cartel involving packaging company Amcor Ltd. In April 2006, Maurice Blackburn filed the suit in Federal Court of Australia on behalf of the now defunct Jarra Creek Central Packaging Shed Pty Ltd., alleging cartel behavior and seeking declarations, injunctions and unspecified damages against: -- Amcor Ltd., -- Amcor Packaging (Australia) Ltd., and -- Fibre Containers (Queensland) Pty Ltd. The suit claimed the plaintiff has been damaged by price fixing and market sharing in the cardboard box industry between 2000 and 2005. Amcor escaped prosecution after being granted immunity by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in return for information about the practice. The class action alleges customers of Amcor and Visy were overcharged between 8 per cent and 15 per cent for their cardboard packaging for a span of more than five years after the companies allegedly entered into a deal to artificially inflate prices. The addition of Visys in the suit follows a $36 million settlement between Visy and the ACCC. It is understood that an admission to the conspiracy by Visy owner Richard Pratt was part of the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12, 2007). The suit will go before the federal court on March 14. BC FERRIES: Suit Over 2006 Sinking Granted Partial Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Donald Brenner certified as class action a lawsuit filed by survivors of Canada's BC Ferry ship Queen of the North, which sank in northern British Columbia in March 2006. Nanaimo Alexander and Maria Kotai filed the case, early in 2006 (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2006). The Kotais accuse BC Ferries of failing to train crew adequately, supervise the crew on the bridge, keep a proper lookout, operate at safe speed, and conduct an evacuation of the ferry in a way that prevented or minimized injuries. In September 2006, B.C. Supreme Court Justice David Tysoe approved the addition of the ship's captain Colin Henthorne, Fourth Officer Carl Lilgert and deckhand Karen Bricker as defendants (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006). In July, Justice Tysoe granted partial certification to the suit (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2007). After hearing arguments to certify the suit on June 12, Judge Tysoe ruled the suit must be changed to include several classes of claimants before it can proceed. Those classes would include out-of-province passengers and some 23 dependents of passengers. B.C. Ferries has paid out $16,700 to passengers who lost cabin luggage but has refused to pay more. A lawyer for the plaintiffs said that with the most recent ruling, they can now begin out-of-court negotiations with B.C. Ferries on damages, CanWest News Service reports. According to the Canadian Press, lawyer David Varty said the certification of the class action paves the way for three subclasses of passengers who now can proceed to an assessment of damages: -- a group that will challenge the limitations on lost- baggage claims; -- a group that will represent people whose baggage claims were fully paid; and -- a group of passengers whose dependents have suffered losses such as contributions to domestic activities, household income and the ripple effect on the dependants' emotional health The Kotais will head the first group. Passenger Barney Dudowald will represent the second group. A representative has not yet been selected for the latter group, Mr. Varty said. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Settles Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. reached a settlement in a lawsuit in which plaintiffs alleged an industry-wide scheme on the part of commercial insurance brokers and insurance companies to defraud a purported class of insurance purchasers through bid-rigging and contingent commission arrangements. Initially, Berkshire Hathaway, General Re Corp., and General Reinsurance Corp., were named as defendants in this multidistrict litigation, entitled, “In Re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663 (D.N.J.).” On April 5, 2007, the Court dismissed all federal antitrust and RICO claims against Berkshire, General Re and General Reinsurance. On May 21, 2007, the plaintiffs concluded a settlement agreement with Berkshire, General Re and General Reinsurance that fully and finally resolved this litigation, as between these settling parties, without payment or admission of any liability on the part of these settling defendants, according to its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. -- http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/-- is a holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business activities, the most important of these are insurance businesses conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis. Berkshire also owns and operates a number of other businesses engaged in a variety of activities. BODEE LLC: Recalls Aminotadalafil-Containing Dietary Tabs --------------------------------------------------------- Bodee LLC, 2222 Avenue of the Stars, 702E, Century City, CA 90067, is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of all the company's supplement product sold under the name Encore Tabs. Bodee LLC is conducting this recall after being informed by representatives of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that lab analysis by FDA of Encore Tabs samples found the product contains potentially harmful, undeclared ingredients. FDA asserts that its chemical analysis revealed that one lot of Encore Tabs contains aminotadalafil, an analog of tadalafil, the active ingredient of a FDA-approved drug used for Erectile Dysfunction (ED). FDA maintains Aminotadalafil is close in structure to tadalafil and is expected to possess a similar pharmacological and adverse event profile. This undeclared chemical poses a threat to consumers because it may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels. Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates. ED is a common problem in men with these conditions, and consumers may seek these types of products to enhance sexual performance. Encore Tabs is sold in health food stores, via the internet and by mail order nationwide and in Canada. The Encore Tabs product is sold as a 2-capsule blister pack packaged in a retail booklet with five booklets in a box. Customers who have this product in their possession should stop using it immediately and contact their physician if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking this product. Any adverse events that may be related to the use of this product should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088 or by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178 or by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852- 9787. The company advises that any unused portion be returned to Bodee LLC for a full purchase price refund by calling (800) 935-0296 for instructions on the return and refund process. The Company is taking this voluntary action because it is committed and is always concerned with the health of persons who have consumed this product. The Company is reviewing the procedures and policies of all firms involved with the manufacture of the product to ensure that there will be no future issues with regard to Encore Tabs’ composition. The Company is working closely with the FDA in the recall process and is committed to the quality and integrity of its products. It sincerely regrets any inconvenience to consumers and its other customers. CANADA: Accused of Illegally Withholding Part of Fishing Quotas --------------------------------------------------------------- The Queen of England, the Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia (PHMA) are facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 20 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, accusing them of unconstitutionally withholding 10 percent of fishing quotas from halibut fishermen and selling the rights to pay for fisheries management. Named plaintiff Lorne Nels David Iverson bring this action on behalf of halibut fishermen in British Columbia who held halibut fishing licenses in the years between 2001 and 2006 inclusive. Plaintiff seeks for the following relief: -- a declaration that the Minister's practice of withholding 10% of the entire quota to be granted to the holders of halibut licenses in British Columbia and assigning it to the PHMA and in turn receiving funds or payments in kind from PHMA's Sale of that quota is unlawful; -- a declaration that all funds and payments-in-kind received by the Minister from the PHMA from sale of quota constitute either: (i) an unlawful conversion of property not owned by the Minister; (ii) unjust enrichment by the Minister; or (iii) funds collected without legislative or constitutional authority by the Minister. -- an accounting and restitution to plaintiff of all monies collected from the plaintiff by the Minister and the PHMA on behalf of the Minister from the plaintiff for the period Jan. 1, 2001 to date; -- return of funds unlawfully converted by the defendants; -- restitution of monies collected from the plaintiff by the defendants without legislative or constitutional authority and retained by the defendants without a juristic reason; -- for damages for misfeasance in public office; -- damages for unlawful administrative action; -- interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act; -- such further and other relief that this court deems appropriate. The suit is "Lorne Nels David Iverson et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al., Court File No. S077807," filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Representing plaintiffs is: Meldon Ellis Ellis Business Lawyers Suite 440-319, West Pender Street Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1T5 Phone: (604) 688-7374 Fax: (604) 688-0201 CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Reliant Settles Market Manipulation Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- A court approved a settlement of 11 natural gas class actions pending in state court in California against Reliant Energy, Inc. (RRI). A large number of lawsuits have been filed against numerous market participants and remain pending in federal court in Wisconsin, Missouri and Nevada and in state court in California and Nevada in connection with the operation of the electricity and natural gas markets in California and certain other states in 2000-2001, a time of power shortages and significant increases in prices. These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions, are based on a number of legal theories, including violation of state and federal antitrust laws, laws against unfair and unlawful business practices, the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act, false claims statutes and similar theories and breaches of contracts to supply power to governmental entities. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which include state officials and governmental entities as well as private litigants, are seeking a variety of forms of relief, including recovery of compensatory damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory damages and punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution, interest due, disgorgement, civil penalties and fines, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees. Centerpoint Energy Inc.'s former subsidiary, RRI, was a participant in the California markets, owning generating plants in the state and participating in both electricity and natural gas trading in that state and in western power markets generally. Centerpoint and/or Reliant Energy have been named in approximately 35 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between 2001 and 2007 and are pending in California state court in San Diego County, in Nevada state court in Clark County, in federal district court in Nevada and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Company, CenterPoint Houston and Reliant Energy were not participants in the electricity or natural gas markets in California. The Company and Reliant Energy have been dismissed from certain of the lawsuits, either voluntarily by the plaintiffs or by order of the court, and the Company believes it is not a proper defendant in the remaining cases and will continue to seek dismissal from such remaining cases. Several of the electricity complaints have been dismissed, and several of the dismissals have been affirmed by appellate courts. Others have been resolved by the settlement described in the following paragraph. Three of the gas complaints were dismissed based on defendants’ claims of the filed rate doctrine, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed two of those dismissals and remanded the cases back to the district court for further proceedings. In June 2005, a San Diego state court refused to dismiss other gas complaints on the same basis. In October 2006, RRI reached a tentative settlement of 11 class action natural gas cases pending in state court in California. The court approved this settlement in June 2007. The other gas cases remain in the early procedural stages. FERC Settlement In August 2005, RRI reached a settlement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission enforcement staff, the states of California, Washington and Oregon, California’s three largest investor-owned utilities, classes of consumers from California and other western states, and a number of California city and county government entities that resolves their claims against RRI related to the operation of the electricity markets in California and certain other western states in 2000-2001. The settlement also resolves the claims of the three states and the investor-owned utilities related to the 2000-2001 natural gas markets. The settlement has been approved by the FERC, by the California Public Utilities Commission and by the courts in which the electricity class actions are pending. Two parties have appealed the courts’ approval of the settlement to the California Court of Appeals. A party in the FERC proceedings filed a motion for rehearing of the FERC’s order approving the settlement, which the FERC denied on May 30, 2006. That party has filed for review of the FERC’s orders in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company is not a party to the settlement, but may rely on the settlement as a defense to any claims brought against it related to the time when the Company was an affiliate of RRI. The terms of the settlement do not require payment by the Company. CENTERPOINT ENERGY: 5th Circuit Hears Appeal in Tex. ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard argument on an appeal against a summary judgment granted to CenterPoint Energy, Inc. in a purported class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In May 2002, three class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston on behalf of participants in various company-sponsored employee benefits plans. Two of the lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice. In the remaining lawsuit, the company and certain current and former members of its benefits committee are defendants. That suit alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to various employee benefits plans, directly or indirectly sponsored by the company, in violation of ERISA by permitting the plans to purchase or hold securities issued by the company when it was imprudent to do so, including after the prices for such securities became artificially inflated because of alleged securities fraud engaged in by the defendants. The complaint sought monetary damages for losses suffered on behalf of the plans and a putative class of plan participants whose accounts held CenterPoint Energy or Reliant Resources, Inc. securities, as well as restitution. In January 2006, the federal district judge granted a motion for summary judgment filed by the Company and the individual defendants. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments from the parties in October 2007. The suit is "Boca Raton Police &, et al. v. Reliant Resources, et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-01810," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division under Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jacks C. Nickens, Esq. Nickens Keeton et al 600 Travis, Ste. 7500 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-571-9191 Fax: 713-571-9652 Niki L. O'Neel, Esq. Alan Schulman, Esq. David R. Stickney, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz et al 12544 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 150 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 858-793-0070 - and - Peter A. Pease, Esq. Michael J. Pucillo, Esq. Wendy Hope, Esq. Zoberman, Berman DeValerio & Pease One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 09109 Phone: 617-542-8300 Fax: 617-542-1194. Representing the company is: James Edward Maloney, Esq. Baker & Botts 910 Louisiana, Ste 3000 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-229-1255 Fax: 713-229-7755 CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Natural Gas Measurement Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.) and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits brought against approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates pending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas. In one case originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times, the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty owners who allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25 years. The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in July 2003 in response to an order from the judge denying certification of the plaintiffs’ alleged class. In the amendment, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against certain defendants (including two CERC Corp. subsidiaries), limited the scope of the class of plaintiffs they purport to represent and eliminated previously asserted claims based on mismeasurement of the British thermal unit (Btu) content of the gas. The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as representatives of a putative class of royalty owners, in which they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for more than 25 years. In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, along with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs and fees. The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. DICK'S SPORTING: Recalls Recliners with Brackets than can Break --------------------------------------------------------------- Dick's Sporting Goods, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 125,000 lounge chairs and recliners. The company said the plastic support brackets can break and cause the chairs to collapse, posing a hazard to consumers. Dick's Sporting Goods has received 19 reports of the chairs and recliners collapsing, including 17 injuries involving lacerations and back pains. This recall involves the Lazy Lounger chair (Style # CEH00415), recliner (Style # CEH00320) and oversize recliner (Style # CEH00414, CEH00345, and CEH00443). Style numbers are printed on the packaging. The chairs have a mesh covering that attaches to a black or tan metal frame by a woven cord. The mesh covering is sold in: blue, orange, black, natural, burgundy, pink, white, green, red, khaki, and camouflage. A padded headrest pillow is sewn on to the mesh. Beneath the padded headrest are two tags. The first reads: “! WARNING !”, followed by 9 numbered statements, and “Made in China”. The second is the ?Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law? tag and includes the manufacturer?s Registration No: OHIO36462HK. These recalled recliners were manufactured by Rankam Group Ltd., of China and are being sold at Dick's Sporting Goods stores nationwide and http://www.dickssportinggoods.comfrom February 2006 to August 2007 for between $40 and $80. Pictures of recalled recliners: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08106a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08106b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08106c.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the chairs and recliners immediately and contact Dick?s Sporting Goods for a free repair kit. For additional information, contact Dick's Sporting Goods toll- free at (866) 500-4982 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or send an email: DicksLazyLounger@rankam.com - consumers can also visit the firm's Web site: http://www.dickssportinggoods.com ENTROPIN INC: Cal. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set March --------------------------------------------------------------- A March 26, 2008 fairness hearing is set for a $4,500,000 settlement of a securities class action filed against Entropin Inc. The hearing will be at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 23, Third Floor, United States District Court for the Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. The class consists of all persons who acquired: (a) common stock or Entropin Inc. in its July 1999 through September 1999 private placements; or (b) common stock and warrants as a unit at $7.00/share and $0.25/warrant) in Entropin Inc.'s March 15, 2000 Public Offering; or (c) warrants of Entropin Inc. on the NASDAQ after Entropin's March 15, 2000 public offering through May 15, 2001 (inclusive). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Wester Division, Case No. CV 04-6180-RC. For more information, contact: Claims Administrator Entropin Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063 Phone: (866) 274 4004 Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net The Rosen Law Firm PA Laurence Rosen, Esq. 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 (212) 686-1060 EV3 INC: Still Faces Suit in Del. Over Plan to Buy MTI Shares ------------------------------------------------------------- ev3, Inc. continues to face a purported stockholder class action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in relation to its proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of its majority owned subsidiary, Micro Therapeutics, Inc., that it does not already own. On Oct. 11, 2005, a purported stockholder class action was filed on behalf of Micro Therapeutics' minority shareholders against Micro Therapeutics, Micro Therapeutics' directors and ev3 challenging the previously announced exchange offer. The complaint alleged the then-proposed transaction constituted a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties. It sought an injunction preventing the completion of the transaction with Micro Therapeutics or, if the transaction were to be completed, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages, unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and expenses. On Jan. 6, 2006, the company completed the transaction with Micro Therapeutics. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. ev3 Inc. -- Net: http://www.ev3.net/-- is a global medical device company focused on catheter-based, or endovascular, technologies for the minimally invasive treatment of vascular diseases and disorders. IKANOS COMMS: Court Considers Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion seeking for a dismissal of an amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Ikanos Communications, Inc. In November 2006, three putative class actions were filed against the company, its directors, an executive officer and a former executive officer. These lawsuits allege certain misrepresentations by the company in connection with its initial public offering in September 2005, the follow-on offering in March 2006, and thereafter concerning its business and prospects. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages. The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2007. The amended complaint alleges certain material misrepresentations and omissions by the Company in connection with its initial public offering in September 2005 and the follow-on offering in March 2006 concerning its business and prospects, and seeks unspecified damages. On June 25, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motions and the matter is pending a decision by the court, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Panther Partners Inc., et al. v. Ikanos Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-12967-PAC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Paul A. Crotty. Representing the plaintiffs is: David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com Representing the defendant is: James N. Kramer, Esq. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415)-773-5700 Fax: (415)-773-5759 E-mail: jkramer@orrick.com INDIANA: Housing Partnership Settles Fraud Lawsuit for $2.4M ------------------------------------------------------------ The Fort Wayne Neighborhood Housing Partnership and buyers of home from the non-profit agreed to a $2.4 million settlement of a suit over alleged overpricing, Rebecca S. Green of The Journal Gazette reports. The Allen Superior Court in Indiana has granted class-action status to the complaint filed in April by eight clients of the agency. They alleged that the defendant sold them homes "at grossly inflated prices" and set them up for failure. Plaintiffs also accused two appraisers of conniving with the partnership. The suit alleges fraud, negligence, civil conspiracy, breach of contract and breach of warranties by the housing partnership. In his ruling on Oct. 3, 2006, Judge David Avery specifically certified the complaint against the partnership as class action, while the one against the two appraisers was conditionally certified as class action. A settlement of the suit was finalized on Nov. 15. Under it, the partnership’s insurance company will pay the first $400,000 portion of the partnership’s judgment. Whether another insurance company will have to pay all or a portion of the remaining $2 million is a matter under litigation in a federal lawsuit, said Matthew Elliott, an attorney with Beckman Lawson LLP, who represented the homebuyers. A hearing on that case is set for December. The $274,000 part of the the $400,000 settlement will be divided up among the class members – with $4,000 going to the original eight plaintiffs and $1,000 to the remaining members, Elliott said. The rest will go as attorneys’ fees. The settlement does not constitute an “admission” of anything by the housing partnership or the appraisers, according to court documents. The Indiana attorney general's office is representing the partnership because it has gone into receivership. The non- profit agency went into receivership in May. For more details, contact Matthew J. Elliott of Beckman Lawson, LLP, Phone: (260) 422-0800, or e-mail mje@beckmanlawson.com, Web site: http://www.beckmanlawson.com. MICROSOFT CORP: Class Status Requested in "Windows Vista” Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs alleging that Microsoft Corp. deceptively marketed its "Windows Vista" have requested class-action status for the case, reports say. Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington had denied Microsoft Corp.’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007). Judge Pechman ruled from the bench in favor of the plaintiff, Dianne Kelley, on two out of four issues raised by Microsoft. She withheld judgment on the other two. Dianne L. Kelley filed the suit on March 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Her legal representative in the case is the law firm of Gordon Murray Tilden LLP (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2007). Prior to the availability of Vista, Microsoft launched a marketing campaign that allowed PC makers to place a sticker on computers alerting potential buyers that they could upgrade to Vista when it became available. Generally, Microsoft defines a PC as "Windows Vista Capable" when it uses "at least" an 800MHz processor, 512 megabytes of RAM, and DirectX 9 compatible graphics card. However, according to the suit, "a large number" of those PCs were only capable of running the Home Basic version of Vista, which lacks many of the features, such as media center, and enhanced graphics, which Microsoft advertises as included in Vista. It was reported that when Microsoft later offered buyers of "Windows Vista Capable" computers free or reduced-price upgrades to Vista, the company offered Home Basic to many customers. Additionally, the suit claims that Bill Gates contributed to the deception by saying on NBC's Today Show, PC users could upgrade to Windows Vista for just $100. Microsoft had sought to have Ms. Kelley's case dismissed on the grounds that she did not have proper standing to bring the case, the report said. But Judge Pechman said that issue will be determined when the parties argue over certification of the case as a class action, meaning it could expand to include anyone who bought a Vista Capable PC under similar circumstances. According to the report, Microsoft argued that Ms. Kelley did not show that the sticker constituted a written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. But the judge said she would consider arguments on this point and issue a written ruling in the next two weeks. Microsoft also argued that Ms. Kelley did not show a "causal link" between the allegedly deceptive Vista Capable campaign and any damage she suffered -- a requirement for a claim under the Consumer Protection Act, the report stated. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs "have pled enough" on this point in case filings so far to allow the case to go forward. She also sided with the plaintiff in allowing the claim of unjust enrichment to go forward. A jury trial was scheduled to begin Oct. 27, 2008. Recently, reports say the plaintiffs asked for class certification. Judge Pechman has not set a date for her ruling on the class-action request. The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475- MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Representing the plaintiff is: Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: 206-467-6477 Fax: 206-467-6292 E-mail: office@gmtlaw.com Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com MISSOURI: Suit Aiming to Block MOHELA Asset Sale Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- A Cole County judge dismissed, at the request of plaintiffs, a purported class action seeking to block the state legislature's decision to sell the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority's assets, David A. Lieb of Associated Press reports. No reason was given for the plaintiffs' request, the report said. The suit was filed by two former students who used money from MOHELA to help pay for a college education (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 23, 2007). Plaintiffs claim the plan by Gov. Matt Blunt to sell the assets to construct $335 million worth of new buildings around the state is allegedly a breach of the MOHELA philosophical and fiduciary mission to provide loans to low-interest loans to Missouri students going to college. John Lichtenegger, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, had said the fiduciary duty of the MOHELA board members is to provide loans, not build buildings. The lawsuit claimed a new capital appropriations program called the Lewis and Clark Discovery Fund should be funded, if at all, by Missouri taxpayers, not just college students, according to the report. Michael McGennis and Aaron Izadi-Moghadam filed the lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court against MOHELA and its board. They sought to declare that MOHELA's conduct was unlawful. They also wanted an injunction against the plan, and appropriate compensatory and punitive damages. The dismissal of the case cleared the way for the loan agency to make its first contribution to Gov. Blunt's construction plan. Previously, the court denied a request to temporarily bar MOHELA from paying the first installment of Gov. Blunt's plan. During a Sept. 11 hearing, Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan refused to issue a temporary restraining order, deciding that the plaintiffs hadn't shown there was a reasonable likelihood they could later win on the merits of their case. Now, with the recent ruling, the loan agency will be able to make its first payment to state of $230 million, according to the report. NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Discount Fees Fraudulent, Mass. Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging it defrauds homebuyers through its “loan discount fees.” Named plaintiff Thomas S. Denman brings this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, on behalf of all: (1) who entered into mortgage loan agreements with Novastar, on or after the date four years prior to the date of the filing of this matter; and (2) who paid fees itemized by NovaStar as "loan discount fees" or whose initial interest rate was fixed for three years or less and variable for four years or more. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether NovaStar structured disadvantageous transactions designed to hide the true costs and expenses of those loans to consumers by including a low fixed rate in those loans for a limited period of time; (b) whether NovaStar deliberately designed loans to be beyond a borrower's ability to pay according to their terms in order to generate settlement fees by sale to investors; (c) whether NovaStar charged borrowers "loan discount fees" without providing discounts for such payment in violation of 940 CMR Sections 3.04,3.05, 3.13, 6.05, 8.04, 8.06 and c. 93A; (d) Whether NovaStar failed to offer borrowers an alternative loan without the “loan discount fees” for the purposes of allowing borrowers to make an informed decision about whether the payment of discount points would be cost effective in violation of 940 C.M.R. §§ 3.04, 3.05, 3.13, 6.05, 8.04, 8.06 and c. 93A; (e) Whether NovaStar properly supervised its employees; (f) Whether Novstar provided inaccurate information about loan terms to customers in the form of bogus “good faith estimates” in order to mislead customers about the available terms of loans in violation of 940 C.M.R. Sections 3.04, 3.05, 3.13, 8.04, 8.06 and c. 93A; (g) Whether NovaStar’s closing fees are duplicative and excessive; and (h) Whether NovaStar was unjustly enriched by its conduct. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: -- Certify this case as a class action and certify the named Plaintiff herein to be adequate class representatives and his counsel to be class counsel; -- Award damages, including actual damages, statutory damages, and multiple damages, and equitable relief, for Defendant’s violations of c. 93A; -- Award damages and equitable remedies arising from Defendant's unconscionable and/or illegal contract terms including but not limited to cancellation and/or refund of unjustified points; -- Award damages and equitable remedies arising from Defendant's unjust enrichment including, without limitation, restitution and reformation of contract; -- Enter a declaration that the Defendant’s lending practices, including, without limitation, its imposition of undisclosed/unjustified “loan discount fees,” are improper; -- Enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant from continuing to violate the law and injuring other persons who enter into home mortgage loans in the future; -- Award reasonable attorney's fee and costs; and -- Enter such other relief at law or equity as this Court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Thomas Denman et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 07-12190," filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Representing plaintiffs are: Gary Klein Elizabeth Ryan Shennan Kavanagh Roddy Klein & Ryan 727 Atlantic Ave., 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02111 Tel. 617-357-5500 x 15 Fax. 617-357-5030 E-mail: klein@roddykleinryan.com NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------ NutriSystem, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors face several purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suits were first commenced on Oct. 9, 2007. The complaints purport to bring claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between Feb. 14, 2007 and Oct. 3, 2007 or Oct. 4, 2007. The complaints allege that the defendants issued various materially false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s projected performance that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of its securities, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. NutriSystem Inc. -- http://www.nutrisystem.com-- is a marketer and provider of weight management system based on a portion- controlled, prepared-meal program. PARMALAT SPA: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Block U.S. Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Parmalat S.p.A. said that a hearing was held on Nov. 29 in the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeal of New York with regards to Parmalat's appeal against the decision of a U.S. District Court which had denied Parmalat's request for an injunction pursuant to section 304 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Parmalat’s request had sought to preclude a purported class of investors from proceeding with a class action against Parmalat in the United States. The Court of Appeal has not decided and has taken the case under advisement. Previously, Class Action Reporter reported that Parmalat asked Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District for the Southern District of New York to dismiss, with prejudice, the claims asserted by the Foreign Plaintiffs in the Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 18, 2007). Peter E. Calamari, Esq., at Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, LLP, in New York, told Judge Kaplan that the Foreign Plaintiffs' claims against Reorganized Parmalat pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act can only be maintained if they can overcome the general presumption that federal statutes do not apply "extra-territorially." To overcome that presumption, Mr. Calamari said, the Foreign Plaintiffs must show that the wrongful conduct either occurred in the United States, or had a substantial effect in the United States or upon its citizens. Mr. Calamari noted that the District Court had already dismissed the claims asserted by the Foreign Plaintiff purchasers against Grant Thornton, Deloitte & Touche, Bank of America, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, and BNL. In doing so, the District Court ruled that the transactions forming the basis of the Foreign Plaintiffs' allegations were overwhelmingly foreign. Mr. Calamari said the District Court's ruling applies to the claims asserted by the Foreign Plaintiffs against Reorganized Parmalat. Unlike the U.S.-based banks and auditors, the Old Parmalat was an Italian company, and by definition, could not have committed acts essential to the alleged fraud against foreign purchasers outside of Italy. Mr. Calamari contended that the Complaint asserts no domestic conduct of Old Parmalat that relates to foreign purchasers. Any alleged conduct in the Unites States was incidental, and therefore did not directly cause the losses of the Foreign Plaintiffs, he maintained. PRESIDENT GLOBAL: Recalls Ice Cream Bars with Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------------- President Global Corp. of Buena Park, CA 90620 is recalling Uni- President Red Bean Flavored Ice Bars (Tung-I Red Bean Flavor Ice Bars) 6/3 fl oz. and Red Bean Tapioca Ice Bars (Tung-I Red Bean Tapioca Ice Bars) 6/2.83 fl oz because they may contain undeclared skim milk. People who have allergies to milk run the risk of serious allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled Uni-President Red Bean Flavored Ice Bars and Red Bean Tapioca Ice Bars were distributed in Asian Retail Food Markets in the Southern California area. Each product comes in a box containing 6 bars. UPC code on boxes of Red Bean Flavor Ice Bars is 4 710608 813600. UPC on boxes of Red Bean Tapioca Ice Bars is 4 710088 070968. There are no expiration dates on the products. One illness in Canada has been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that skim milk containing products were distributed in packaging that did not indicate presence of skim milk or milk protein. Distribution of the products has been suspended until FDA and President Global Corp. are certain the problem has been corrected. Consumers who have purchased Uni-President Red Bean Flavor Ice Bars and Uni-President Red Bean Tapioca Ice Bars are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or exchange. Consumers with questions may contact the company at ( 714)-994-2990. SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Considers Pending Motions in Price I --------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on: -- motions for class certification, and -- motion to intervene in the purported class action, “Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 99 C 30, or Price Litigation I,” which names Southern Star Central Corp as a defendant. In this putative class action filed May 28, 1999, the named plaintiffs, or Plaintiffs, have sued over 50 defendants, including Southern Star Central Corp. Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment, their Fourth Amended Class Action Petition alleges that the defendants have undermeasured the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages. On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central. Despite a denial by the court on April 10, 2003 of their original motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs continue to seek the certification of a class. The Plaintiffs motion seeking class certification for a second time was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on this motion on April 1, 2005. In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by Plaintiffs. It is unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. -- http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding company for its regulated pipeline operations and development opportunities. SOUTHERN STAR: Kans. Court Considers Pending Motions in Price II ---------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on: -- motions for class certification, and -- motion to intervene in the purported class action, “Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 03 C 23,” or “Price Litigation II,” which names Southern Star Central Corp. as a defendant. In this putative class action filed May 12, 2003, the named Plaintiffs from Price Litigation I have sued the same defendants, including Souther Star. Asserting substantially identical legal and/or equitable theories, as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the defendants have undermeasured the British thermal units, or Btu, content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages. On Nov. 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central. The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with Plaintiffs second class certification motion in Price Litigation I, was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on this motion on April 1, 2005. In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by Plaintiffs. It is unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. -- http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding company for its regulated pipeline operations and development opportunities. TELLABS INC: 7th Circuit Hears Appeal in Ill. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently heard oral arguments for the remanded case, “Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-04356” On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Tellabs) and Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs). Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on Dec. 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of our current or former officers and/or directors. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class period (December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the company's financial statements. Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities laws by trading the company's securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about us pertaining to these matters. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief. On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead. On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class action complaint. The company filed a second motion to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action complaint. On Feb. 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, appealing the dismissal. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on Jan. 21, 2005. On Jan. 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for further proceedings. On Feb. 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion. On Sept. 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district court to dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining claims. On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the Seventh Circuit’s decision. On Jan. 5, 2007, the defendants’ petition was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. On Nov. 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded case, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 28, 2007. The suit is “Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-04356,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Amy J. St. Eve. Representing the plaintiff is: Steven G. Schulman, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Representing the defendant is: David F. Graham, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Medical Malpractice Suits in La. -------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corp. hospitals remain defendants in three medical malpractice cases filed as purported class actions by former patients of Memorial Medical Center and Lindy Boggs Medical Center in New Orleans. In each case, family members allege, on behalf of themselves and a purported class of other patients and their family members, damages as a result of injuries sustained during Hurricane Katrina. Tenet reported no development on this matter in its Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006. Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is engaged in the provision of healthcare services, primarily through the operation of general hospitals. THANE INTERNATIONAL: Securities Suit Remanded to Calif. Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a defense verdict by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in a securities suit against Thane International Inc. The court remanded the action to the district court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, to address loss causation, and to conduct further proceedings. Thane International is a Canadian direct marketing company. The company and certain of its officers and directors are accused of violating the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with a merger in which the shareholders of Reliant Interactive Media Corp. received shares of Thane International. The plaintiffs contend that the prospectus distributed to Reliant shareholders contained a material misstatement of fact because Thane did not list its stock on the NASDAQ National Market System following the merger. The case was originally filed in Superior Court and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Notice of Removal dated October 23, 2002. On June 19, 2003, the case was intra-district transferred to the Southern Division of the U.S. Court for the Central District of California and reassigned to Judge James V. Selna by the Order dated June 6, 2003. On June 8, 2005, Thane won a favorable verdict. On July 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the verdict. On November 26, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion reversing and remanding the action back to District Court. According to Matthew Hirsch of The Recorder, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote in the opinion stating that the company made material misrepresentations to shareholders. The ruling said that the reported share price in the weeks following the merger ranged between $7 and $8.50. The price dropped a few months later below $2 on a poor earnings report, and then the company repurchased stock at 35 cents a share before the plaintiffs sued. The case is "Howard Miller, et al. v. Thane International Inc., et al., Case No. 03-CV-01031," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge James V. Selna. Representing Thane is: Michael Tu, Esq. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Phone: (213) 612-2433 E-mail: mtu@orrick.com Representing plaintiffs is: Lionel Glancy, Esq. Glancy and Binkow 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311 Los Angeles, CA, 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: info@glancylaw.com WELLS FARGO: Sued in Calif. Over Unnecessary Overdraft Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging it illegally charges accountholders who use ATM machines for overdrafts though they have sufficient funds in their accounts to cover the transactions, the CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a civil action primarily seeking from defendants restitution and disgorgement of all profits gained on their practice of improperly assessing customers overdraft charges for insufficient funds on debit/check card purchases and ATM withdrawals, when there was sufficient funds in the account when the purchases and withdrawals were made and approved by defendants. Named plaintiffs, Claudia Sanchez, Erin Walker and William Smith, claim the bank facilitates this cheating by providing them with inaccurate "available balance" statements. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all residents who were/are checking account customers of Wells Fargo, and from May 25, 2003 to the present were assessed an insufficient overdraft fee for at ATM, Check Card Purchase, Debit Card Purchase, or ATM transaction for which there was sufficient funds in the checking account at the time of the transaction. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant assessed insufficient overdraft fees for transactions it approved and for which there were sufficient funds in the account at the time of the transaction to cover the cost of the transaction; (b) whether defendant promotes, markets, encourages and advertises the available balance through ATM machines, Online, bank Statements, In-Store and Telephone as something for the customer to rely on, which is inaccurate and can result in insufficient overdraft charges for transaction that are within the amount of the stated available balance provided by Wells Fargo. (c) whether defendants failed to notify customers that it assessed insufficient overdraft fees for transactions it approved, and for which there were sufficient funds in the account at the time of the transaction to cover the cost of the transaction; (d) whether defendant failed to notify customers that available balance information through ATM machines, Online, Bank Statements, In-Store and Telephone is inaccurate and can result in insufficient overdraft charges for transaction that are within the amount go the stated available balance provided by Wells Fargo; (e) whether defendant's conduct constitute unalwful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices in violation of California Consumer Legal Remedies act and/or the Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: -- for an order certifying the California class and appointing plaintiffs and his counsel to represent the California class; -- for an order certifying the National class and appointing plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the National class; -- for an order awarding plaintiffs and the California and National classes restitution and/or disgorgement and other equitable relief as the court deems proper; -- for an order awarding plaintiffs and the California and National classes punitive damages as the appropriate cause of action; -- for an order enjoining defendants: (1) under Civil Code sections 1780(a)(2) and 1781(a) from continuing to use, employ, or undertake unfair methods of competition, acts and practices, or any of them, which are violative of that statute as alleged; (2) under Business and Professions Code Section 17203 from continuing to engage in business acts and practices, or any of them, which are unalwful, unfair, or fraudulent, as alleged; (3) under Business and Professions Code section 17535 from continuing to engage in the dissemination of advertisements which are untrue or misleading, alleged; -- for an order mandating that defendants engage in a corrective advertising campaign to correct the misperceptions defendants' conduct created; -- for an order awarding plaintiff and the California and National classes pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' and expert-witness fees and other costs pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et seq., Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and other statutes as may be applicable; and -- for an order awarding such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Claudia Sanchez et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, et al., Case No. CV 07 5923," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Richard D. Mccune, Esq. Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq. McCune & Wright, LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Phone: (909) 557-1250 Fax: (909) 557-1275 YRC WORLDWIDE: Faces Suits Over Fuel Surcharges in LTL Shipments ---------------------------------------------------------------- YRC Worldwide, Inc. along with other less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers face several purported class actions that accuse them of conspiring throughout four years or more to fix fuel surcharges on LTL shipments. On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. d/b/a Water Tech, and C.B.J.T. d/b/a Agricultural Supply, on behalf of themselves and other plaintiffs, filed a putative class action against the Company and 10 other companies engaged in the LTL trucking business in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Named defendants in that complaint are: -- Arkansas Best Corp., -- Averitt Express, -- Con-Way, Inc., -- Fedex Corp., -- Jevic Transportation, Inc., -- Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC, -- New England Motor Freight, Inc., -- R+L Carriers, Inc., -- Saia, Inc., -- United Parcel Service, Inc., -- YRC Worldwide Inc., -- Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc. Farm Water, doing business as Water Tech, and its subsidiary CBJT, doing business as Agricultural Supply contend that the practice dates back to 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2007). They charge that the carriers agreed to impose identical or nearly identical surcharges by linking them to diesel fuel prices published by the U.S. Department of Energy and by listing surcharges on their websites to communicate pricing. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003 through the conclusion of the trial in this matter (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 2, 2007). The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed for LTL services sold in the United States; (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy; (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint and the nature and character of the acts performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the Sherman Act; (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co- conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused injury to the business and property plaintiffs and other members of the classes; (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of LTL services sold in the United States during the class period; and (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by plaintiffs and other members of the damages class. Plaintiffs pray that: -- the court determines that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co- conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the damages class against defendants for three times the amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; -- defendants and their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner: (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging in any other contract, combination or conspiracy having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect; and (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the manufacture, distribution or sale of any product except to the extent necessary in connection with a bona fide sales transaction between the parties to such communications; and -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other, further and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. Since the filing of the above suit, other plaintiffs have filed similar cases in various courts across the nation. Under federal court rules, the courts will likely consolidate these cases into a single proceeding. The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. et al. v. Arkansas Best Corp. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01389-BEN-RBB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, under Judge Roger T. Benitez, with referral to Judge Ruben B. Brooks. Representing plaintiffs are: Christopher M. Burke Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Patrick J. Coughlin Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415)288-4545 Fax: (415)288-4534 E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com - and - Jeffrey Todd Thomas Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1400 Irvine, CA 92614-8557 Phone: (949)451-3967 Fax: (949)475-4670 E-mail: jtthomas@gibsondunn.com ZIEMAN MANUFACTURING: Settles Suit Over Toy Hauler Trailers ----------------------------------------------------------- Zieman Manufacturing has settled a consolidated lawsuit filed against it and Weekend Warrior Trailers, Inc. over defective toy hauler trailers. On or about October 11, 2005 and October 12, 2005, two actions were commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, entitled: -- “Arlen Williams, Jr. v. Weekend Warrior Trailers, Inc., Zieman Manufacturing Company, et. al. (Case No. CV027691),” and -- “Joseph Giordano and Dennis Gish, v. Weekend Warrior Trailers, Inc, and Zieman Manufacturing Company, et. al. (Case No. 05AS04523).” Each case purports to be a class action on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated. The complaints in both cases are substantially identical and the cases were consolidated. Defendant Zieman Manufacturing Company is a subsidiary of Lippert Components Inc. Mandatory mediation was conducted. The parties reached a settlement, and entered into a final settlement agreement which was preliminarily approved by the Court. It is currently anticipated that the Court will conduct a final approval hearing in three to four months. The settlement would not result in material liability to Zieman. However, unless and until the settlement is implemented and receives final approval by the Court, the outcome cannot be predicted. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Weekend Warrior sold certain toy hauler trailers during the model years 1999 - 2005 equipped with frames manufactured by Zieman that are defective in design and manufacture. Plaintiffs alleged that the defects cause the trailer to place excessive weight on the trailer coach tongue and the towing vehicle’s trailer hitch, causing damage to the trailers and the towing vehicles, and that the tires on the trailers do not support the advertised maximum towing capacity of the trailers. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of residents of California who purchased such new or used models. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount (including compensatory, incidental and consequential damages), punitive damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs. Zieman vigorously defended against the allegations made by plaintiffs, as well as plaintiffs’ ability to pursue the claims as a class action. Zieman and Lippert’s liability insurers agreed to defend Zieman, subject to reservation of the insurers’ rights. * Lawyer R. Michael Underwood Joins Fowler White in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- Former senior Florida Office of Financial Regulation lawyer, R. Michael Underwood, has joined the law firm of Fowler White Boggs Banker in its Tallahassee office. According to Burt Wiand, Practice Group Leader of Fowler White's Securities and Financial Services Litigation practice, "The addition of Mike is another significant step in the firm's implementation of our strategic growth plan. We are truly excited about Mike joining our firm, giving us one of the largest securities and financial services litigation practices in Florida and adding to our firm a tremendous talent. Mike is well known in dealing with state financial services regulatory matters. To have a former attorney with the Florida OFR join our experienced group of lawyers raises the bar for our practice and our firm." Since leaving government, Michael Underwood has represented securities broker-dealers, investment advisers, financial institutions and affiliated individuals in civil litigation, arbitration, regulatory matters and enforcement actions. His experience includes defense of class actions, multi- district litigation and regular appearances before self-regulatory organizations like FINRA and the New York Stock Exchange as well as state and federal financial regulators. He will assist the firm's clients with state securities, banking and insurance regulatory matters. Mr. Underwood is an officer of the American Bar Association Committee on State Regulation of Securities and Chair of its Subcommittee on Enforcement. He has written many publications on financial services regulation and lectures frequently on these topics. Mr. Underwood remarked that, "joining Fowler White is truly exhilarating. The firm's securities and financial services litigation group is not only widely known in Florida, but throughout the U.S. The quality of the lawyers is exceptional, and I feel privileged to join their ranks." Fowler White Boggs Banker is one of Florida's oldest and largest law firms with more than 210 attorneys in eight offices throughout Florida in Tampa, St. Petersburg, Ft. Myers, Tallahassee, Orlando, Naples, Jacksonville and Fort Lauderdale. For more information, visit http://www.fowlerwhite.com. Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Mayle Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued a split ruling in an asbestos-related action filed by Chester D. Mayle, Sr. against Gordon H. Mansfield, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Judge Davis entered judgment of Case No. 06-3533 on Oct. 9, 2007. Mr. Mayle served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1950 to April 1956. In August 1982, a VA regional office (RO) granted him service connection for pulmonary tuberculosis with pleural thickening and fibrosis, at a 10 percent disability rating. In December 1989, a private physician diagnosed Mr. Mayle with "simple asbestosis." In July 1992, an RO denied Mr. Mayle's service-connection claim for asbestosis. In a 1994 Board of Veterans' Appeals decision, the Board upheld that denial, despite its determination that Mr. Mayle was exposed to asbestos in service. Mr. Mayle underwent a VA pulmonary examination in January 1999. The examiner stated that Mr. Mayle had no history of asbestos exposure until 1953, and that, after discharge in 1956, he was exposed to very high level of asbestos. Mr. Mayle also argued for reversal of the Board's decision denying his service-connection claim for asbestosis. Because the Board failed to consider the prior diagnosis, as Mr. Mansfield conceded, remand was required. Mr. Mayle appealed through counsel from a Nov. 22, 2005 Board decision that denied: -- service connection for asbestosis and a lung disorder other than inactive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB); -- an increased rating for pleural thickening and fibrosis; and -- a total disability based on unemployability (TDIU). The appeal was timely, and the Court had jurisdiction to review the Board's decision. The Appeals Court affirmed in part and set aside in part the Board's November 2005 decision and remanded the matters for further proceedings. After consideration of the parties' briefs and a review of the record, the Board's Nov. 22, 2005, decision was affirmed in part and set aside and remanded in part for further development and further adjudication. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Active Claims v. Dana Drop to 55T at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Corp. had about 55,000 active pending asbestos-related product liability claims at Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. These 55,000 claims include about 6,000 claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation and payment. The Company had about 72,000 active pending asbestos-related product liability claims at June 30, 2007, including about 6,000 claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation and payment. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) The number of active pending claims was reduced as tort reform and other initiatives in the State of Mississippi resulted in the dismissal of 17,000 claims. On Oct. 26, 2007, the Company filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking approval to resolve an additional 7,500 pending cases. The estimated total payments for these settlements, if all claimants are able to submit the required proof to support their claims, would be about US$2 million. The Company had accrued US$138 million for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future claims at Sept. 30, 2007. Before 2006, the Company reached agreements with some of its insurers to commute policies covering asbestos-related product liability claims. There were no commutations of insurance in the first three quarters of 2007. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's liability for future demands under prior commutations was US$11 million, bringing its total recorded liability for asbestos-related product liability claims to US$149 million. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had recorded US$71 million as an asset for probable recovery from its insurers for pending and projected asbestos-related product liability claims. In addition, the Company had a net amount recoverable from its insurers and others of US$17 million at Sept. 30, 2007. Under the Plan of Reorganization, the Debtors propose that their asbestos-related personal injury claims be reinstated upon emergence and that the reorganized Debtors will defend, settle and resolve such pending claims and future demands in the ordinary course of business. After the Center for Claims Resolution discontinued negotiating shared settlements for asbestos claims for its member companies in 2001, some former CCR members defaulted on the payment of their shares of some settlements and some settling claimants sought payment of the unpaid shares from other members of the CCR at the time of the settlements, including the Company. Through Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had paid US$47 million to such claimants and collected US$29 million from its insurance carriers with respect to these claims. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had a net receivable of US$13 million for the amount that it expects to recover from available insurance and surety bonds relating to these claims. Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Corp. supplies axle, driveshaft, structures, sealing and thermal products and also designs and manufactures products for vehicle producers. The Company employs about 36,000 people in 26 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Energy Unit Has Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies are defendants, along with numerous others, in lawsuits filed by individuals due to exposure to asbestos during work at formerly owned facilities. The Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy Inc. The Company anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. Company subsidiaries own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and provide various ancillary services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.87B at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group Inc.'s asbestos-related reserves amounted to a gross of US$3.869 billion (net of US$1.533 billion) in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with a gross of US$4.039 billion (net of US$1.696 billion) in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The Company's asbestos-related reserves amounted to a gross of US$4.020 billion (net of US$1.596 billion) in the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with a gross of US$4.136 billion (net of US$1.748 billion) in the six months ended June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) The Company's asbestos-related incurred but not reported reserve for losses and loss expenses amounted to a gross of US$2.743 billion (a net of US$1.261 billion) in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with a gross of US$2.863 billion (a net of US$1.554 billion) in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The Company had 6,341 asbestos claims in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 7,027 claims in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company opened 321 claims, settled 113 claims, and dismissed or resolved 745 claims. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company opened 538 claims, settled 126 claims, and dismissed or resolved 678 claims. The Company's asbestos survival ratio was a gross of 7.6 years (a net of 11.9 years) during 2007, compared with a gross of 6.4 years (a net of 13.6 years) during 2006. New York-based American International Group Inc.'s subsidiaries serve commercial, institutional and individual customers through a property-casualty and life insurance and retirement services network. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ampco Drop to 8,274 at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related claims against Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. dropped to 8,274 during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, from 9,887 claims during the six months ended June 30, 2007. Gross settlement and defense costs during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 amounted to US$12,124,000 and claims settled or dismissed were about 2,354. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries and of an inactive Company subsidiary. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants in cases filed in various state and federal courts. The Company's current asbestos liability amounted to US$12 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's long- term asbestos liability amounted to US$127,799,276 at Sept. 30, 2007 and US$128,014,944 at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$11.7 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$102,847,965 at Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. Certain Company subsidiaries and the Company have an arrangement with insurers responsible for historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability. Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial responsibility. The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgment that Howden Buffalo Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former Company subsidiary. The Company has recorded reserves for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 of US$140 million, of which about 60 percent is attributable to settlement and defense costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed through 2013. The Company has also recorded a receivable of US$114.5 million for insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Company's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. makes metal products. It operates in two business segments: the Forged and Cast Rolls segment and the Air and Liquid Processing segment. Company headquarters are in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Records 826 W.Va. Claims at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allegheny Energy Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded a total of 826 asbestos exposure claims pending in West Virginia, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company also recorded two claims in Pennsylvania and one in Illinois. The Company's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Co., The Potomac Edison Co., and West Penn Power Co.) have been named as defendants in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors’ employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the Company. These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Company's generation facilities. The Company's historical operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd’s of London. Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers. Certain insurers, however, have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits. The Company is involved in two asbestos and environmental insurance-related actions. These actions are: -- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington County, Md.), and -- Monongahela Power Co. et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.). The parties in these actions seek a declaration of coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental claims. Greensburg, Pa.-based Allegheny Energy Inc. operates primarily through directly and indirectly owned subsidiaries. The Company's two business segments are the Delivery and Services segment and the Generation and Marketing segment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reserves $3.061B for Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACE Ltd.'s asbestos-related loss reserves amounted to a gross of US$3.061 billion (a net of US$1.560 billion) at June 30, 2007, compared with a gross of US$3.221 billion (a net of US$1.611 billion) at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's asbestos-related loss reserves totaled a gross of US$3.158 billion (a net of US$1.592 billion) at March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) The Company faces claims relating to policies issued to manufacturers, distributors, installers, and other parties in the chain of commerce for asbestos and products containing asbestos. Claims can be filed by individual claimants or group of claimants with the potential for hundreds of individual claimants at one time. Claimants will generally allege damages across an extended time period which may coincide with multiple policies for a single insured. Hamilton, Bermuda-based ACE Ltd. is a holding company that, through its subsidiaries, provides a broad range of insurance and reinsurance products to insureds worldwide. ACE operates through the following business segments: Insurance – North American, Insurance – Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life Insurance and Reinsurance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Trial Court Ruling Upheld in CIC Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 1st District, Hamilton County, upheld the ruling of the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in an asbestos-related declaratory action involving The Cincinnati Insurance Co, ACE INA Holdings Inc., Westfield Insurance Co. and Flexo Products Inc. Judges Mark P. Painter, Hildebrandt, and Sunderman, entered judgment of Case Nos. C-060384 and C-060385 on Oct. 19, 2007. An excess insurer, Cincinnati Insurance sued the primary insurer ACE INA (f/k/a CIGNA Property & Casualty Insurance Co., f/k/a Aetna Property & Casualty Insurance Co.)in a declaratory- judgment action seeking an additional US$1.8 million to cover asbestos claims against their insured Flexo. For clarity, “ACE” is used interchangeably with its predecessors, “CIGNA” and “AETNA.” Flexo manufactured and sold protective masks that purportedly filtered and protected against harmful particles like silica. ACE insured Flexo under three different and consecutive primary insurance policies. The three consecutive policies ran from 1963 to 1966 (Policy 1), from 1966 to 1969 (Policy 2), and from 1969 to 1972 (Policy 3). Cincinnati Insurance issued excess policies to Flexo from 1967 to 1986. Westfield also provided primary insurance to Flexo but has been dismissed from this case. Cincinnati Insurance and ACE provided separate layers of insurance coverage to Flexo. ACE was the primary insurer, and Cincinnati Insurance provided an excess layer of coverage. When ACE notified Cincinnati Insurance that its primary coverage had been exhausted, this declaratory- judgment action followed. Cincinnati Insurance alleged that ACE owed an additional US$1.8 million in primary coverage based on three multi-year policies. The three successive multi-year policies each spanned three years, for nine years of total coverage. The policies in the record are incomplete, but the available documents reveal that ACE's potential liability was US$300,000 "aggregate." The US$1.8 million question was whether the word "aggregate" meant that the US$300,000 limit applied per year or per term. The trial court granted in part and denied in part both parties' summary-judgment motions, concluding that because the complete contents of the multi-year policies were not available, (1) the term "aggregate" was ambiguous as it related to whether the limit applied per year or per policy; (2) extrinsic evidence was admissible; (3) the extrinsic evidence showed that the contracting parties contemplated that the US$300,000 limit would apply per year, for nine years, for a total of US$2.7 million in coverage; (4) the underlying asbestos claims constituted multiple accidents and occurrences; and (5) ACE did not lack good faith in denying coverage. Both parties now appealed. The Appeals Court addressed a lost-policy insurance-coverage quarrel. The Court affirmed. The aggregate policy limits applied annually; and the "deemer" clause was ineffective to limit liability on these facts. Because the policies were incomplete, the partial multi-year policies were ambiguous and required extrinsic evidence; the evidence revealed that the contracting parties intended the aggregates to apply annually; and the limit of Policy 2 and Policy 3 is $1,800,000. The judgment of the trial court is, accordingly, affirmed. K. Roger Schoeni, Kimberly A. Zamary, and Louis C. Schneider, represented The Cincinnati Insurance Co. Jason C. Gruber, and McCaslin, Imbus & McCaslin, and Patrick Shine and Cohn, Baughman & Martin, represented ACE INA Holdings Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kans. Court Issues Split Ruling in ACE Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, D. Kansas, issued a split ruling in an asbestos-related insurance action involving ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Co. and Superior Boiler Works Inc. The suit is styled ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Co., as successor to Cigna Property & Casualty Insurance Co., as successor to Aetna Insurance Co.; and Century Indemnity Co., as successor to CCI Insurance Co., as successor to Insurance Company of North America v. Superior Boiler Works Inc. District Judge Marten entered judgment of Case No. 05-1301-JTM on Aug. 27, 2007. Superior Boiler, which makes industrial boilers, was named as a defendant in lawsuits by individuals for alleged bodily injury due to asbestos exposure while repairing or working on or near boilers made by Superior Boiler. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, in which they requested the determination of whether: (1) They are obligated to pay their pro rata share of Superior Boiler's defense and indemnity costs for the underlying asbestos claims based on a pro rata, time-on-the-risk allocation method (Count I), and whether (2) Superior Boiler is responsible for its pro rata share of defense and indemnity costs for the underlying asbestos claims based on a pro rata, time-on-the-risk allocation method for periods during which it was uninsured and periods during which it placed insurance with a company that later became insolvent (Count II). Plaintiffs also sought an order directing Superior Boiler to reimburse plaintiffs for defense and indemnity costs for the underlying asbestos claims that they have paid in excess of their properly allocated pro rata share. Superior Boiler argued that despite the fact that the underlying claims were asserted since 1987, plaintiffs made defense and indemnity payments since 1987 under their insurance contracts, and that plaintiffs made demands on Superior Boiler to pay a share of those costs, which Superior Boiler refused in 1996. Plaintiffs sought a declaration of coverage and equitable contribution for reimbursement of paid amounts. Furthermore, in its motion for summary judgment, Superior Boiler argued that the claims for paid amounts are barred by the applicable Kansas statute of limitations for written contracts of five years and for equitable contribution of three years. Therefore, Superior Boiler argued, plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed. The matter arose from the plaintiffs' and Superior Boiler's motions for summary judgment. The District Court ruled that plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied and that Superior Boiler's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to Count I and denied with respect to Count II. Erin O'Brien, James F. Martin, Kathleen A. McQueeny, Cohn Baughman & Martin, Chicago, IL, Geron J. Bird, Scott R. Schillings, Hinkle Elkouri Law Firm, LLC, Wichita, Kans., represented the Plaintiffs. Douglas Y. Curran, Richard L. Green, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kansas City, Mo., represented Superior Boiler Works Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records 460 Damage Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded about 460 outstanding asbestos-related property damage claims, following the reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. The Company, as of June 30, 2007, recorded about 470 outstanding asbestos-related property damage claims, following the reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected buildings. Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases filed before the April 2, 2001 Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement amounts. Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the Company in nine cases (excluding cases settled following appeals of judgments in favor of the Company. Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases (one of which is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1 million, 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of US$696.8 million, and 16 cases remain outstanding (including the one on appeal). Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to Zonolite Attic Insulation, a former Grace attic insulation product, and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve ZAI). About 4,035 additional property damage claims were filed before the March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court. In October 2007, the Bankruptcy Court approved settlement agreements covering 255 property damage claims for an aggregate allowed amount of US$64 million. Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of all such insulation. The plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have been stayed. The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute the Company's position on the safety of ZAI. On Oct. 18, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on motions filed by the parties to address a number of important legal and factual issues regarding the ZAI claims. On Dec. 14, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI. The ZAI claimants intend to appeal that opinion and order. The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a conference in November 2007 to consider whether any of the claimant’s theories of liability still need to be addressed and what claims may still remain. Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,” which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending v. W.R. Grace ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. continues to face asbestos personal injury lawsuits, in which claimants allege adverse health effects from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly made by the Company. Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 Filing Date, 16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720 claims were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products were not involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about 163,698 claims were disposed of (through settlements and judgments) for a total of US$645.6 million. As of the Filing Date, 129,191 claims for personal injury were pending against the Company. The Company said it believes that a substantial number of additional personal injury claims would have been received between the Filing Date and Sept. 30, 2007 had those claims not been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court. Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,” which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $917M Excess Coverage at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co., as of Sept. 30, 2007, had about US$917 million of asbestos-related excess coverage from 54 presently solvent insurers, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for 1962 to 1984 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims. Eligible claims would have to exceed US$4 billion to access total coverage. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been commercially available to the Company. The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts paid and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate amount for settled insurers available under these settlement agreements is about US$487 million. With respect to asbestos-related personal injury claims, the settlement agreements generally require that the claims be spread over the claimant’s exposure period and that each insurer pay a pro rata portion of each claim based on the amount of coverage provided during each year of the total exposure period. Presently, the Company has no agreements in place with insurers with respect to about US$430 million of excess coverage, which is at layers of coverage that have not yet been triggered, but certain layers would be triggered if the Plan of Reorganization were approved at the recorded asbestos-related liability of US1.700 billion. In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with an underwriter of a portion of its excess insurance coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the benefit of the holders of claims for which the Company was provided coverage under the affected policies. The escrow account balance at Sept. 30, 2007 averaged US$93.7 million, including interest earned on the account. The settlement agreement provides that unless the Company confirms a plan of reorganization by Dec. 31, 2008, at the option of the insurer, exercisable at any time prior to April 30, 2009, the escrow amount with interest must be returned to the insurer. In addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers. Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,” which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $267.1M Mont. Liability at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby, Mont., totaled US$267.1 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$255.2 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The liability includes the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby. The Company's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation on its former vermiculite operations in Libby totaled US$267.3 million at June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) As a result of a 2002 district court ruling, the Company is required to reimburse the U.S. Government for US$54.5 million (plus interest) in costs expended through December 2001, and for all appropriate future costs to complete asbestos-related remediation relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining and processing activities in the Libby, Mont., area. These costs include cleaning and demolition of contaminated buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and investigation and monitoring costs. The estimated obligation as of Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006 includes US$164.4 million for asserted reimbursable costs through 2005, which includes the US$54.5 million charge. The estimate as of each date does not include the cost to remediate the Company-owned mine site at Libby or other nearby properties that may require remediation, which costs are not currently estimable. Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,” which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Spends $11.2M for Libby Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. and seven of its current or former senior level employees spent US$11.2 million, for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, over an asbestos-related lawsuit on the Company's Libby, Mont., operations. The Company and the employees spent US$48.2 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The amounts are included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. Cumulative expenses to address this matter were US$83.8 million through Sept. 30, 2007. On Feb. 7, 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the unsealing of a grand jury indictment against the Company and seven current or former senior level employees on the Company's former vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby, Mont. The suit is styled United States of America v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al. The indictment accuses the defendants of: (1) conspiracy to violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency proceedings; (2) violations of the federal Clean Air Act; and (3) obstruction of justice. The Company bought the Libby mine in 1963 and operated it until 1990; vermiculite processing activities continued until 1992. The grand jury charges that the conspiracy took place from 1976 to 2002. According to the DOJ, the Company could be subject to fines in an amount equal to twice the after-tax profit earned from its Libby operations or twice the alleged loss suffered by victims, plus additional amounts for restitution to victims. The indictment alleges that those after-tax profits were US$140 million. In March 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana entered a scheduling order setting a trial date of Sept. 11, 2006. In July 2006, the District Court dismissed a portion of the conspiracy count of a superseding indictment alleging conspiracy to knowingly endanger residents of the Libby area and others in violation of the Clean Air Act. In August 2006, the District Court granted a motion by the defendants to exclude as evidence sample results that included minerals that do not constitute asbestos under the Clean Air Act. The Government appealed these and other rulings to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument in June 2007. In September 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the July 2006 and August 2006 District Court rulings. In November 2007, the Company filed a petition for rehearing concerning these rulings. A new trial date has not yet been scheduled. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company's request to advance legal and defense costs to the employees, subject to a reimbursement obligation if it is later determined that the employees did not meet the standards for indemnification set forth under the appropriate state corporate law. While the appeal is pending, the Company expects legal fees for this matter to be US$3 million to US$5 million per quarter. Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,” which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Action v. Grace, 2 Ex-Employees Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. and two former employees, since June 1, 2005, have been facing an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Mercer County. The suit is styled New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al. The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations and false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the Company to the DEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act. The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an independent environmental consultant, in connection with the closing of the Company's former plant in Hamilton Township, N.J. The State of New Jersey and the U.S. Department of Justice also were conducting criminal investigations on the Company's former operations of the Hamilton plant, but the Company is not aware of any recent activity related to those investigations. The Company purchased the Hamilton plant assets in 1963 and ceased operations in 1994. During the operating period, the Company produced spray-on fire protection products and vermiculite-based products at this plant. The current property owners are conducting remediation activities as directed by the EPA. The property owners and the EPA have filed proofs of claim against the Company for this site and now seek about US$3.4 million with respect to the Hamilton plant site. In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied the State of New Jersey’s motion for leave to file a late proof of claim in the amount of US$31 million. This ruling, which the State of New Jersey has appealed, does not affect the claims against the former employees, for which the Company would have an indemnification obligation. Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: “Grace Davison,” which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and materials used in a wide range of industrial applications; and “Grace Performance Chemicals,” which includes specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial and residential construction and in rigid food and beverage packaging. The Company conducts its business through W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Third-Party Actions Pending v. Liggett ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. states that, as of Sept. 30, 2007, two Third- Party Payor Actions are pending against its subsidiary Liggett Group LLC, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named. The Third-Party Payor Actions typically have been commenced by insurance companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos manufacturers and others. In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for: funding of corrective public education campaigns relating to issues of smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking cessation programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of cigarettes; restitution; treble damages; and attorneys’ fees. Although no specific amounts are provided, it is understood that requested damages against the tobacco company defendants in these cases might be in the billions of dollars. Miami, Fla.-based Vector Group Ltd.'s units include VGR Holding LLC, Liggett Group LLC (engages in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the U.S.), Vector Tobacco Inc. (engaged in the development and marketing of low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products), Liggett Vector Brands Inc., and New Valley LLC (engages in real estate). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Faces 507 Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Shipyards is a defendant in about 507 asbestos-related claims, of which about 16 are “malignant” and about 491 are “non-malignant,” according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. The Company faced about 504 asbestos-related claims, of which about 18 were “malignant” and 486 were “non-malignant.” (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances, generally asbestos, at closed former facilities. The cases include as defendants, in addition to the Company, other ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances. The Company assesses claims as they are filed and as the cases develop, analyzing them in two different categories based on severity of illness. Certain diseases including mesothelioma, lung cancer and fully developed asbestosis are categorized by the Company as "malignant" claims. All others of a less medically serious nature are categorized as "non-malignant." As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has recorded a bodily injury liability reserve of US$5.5 million and a bodily injury insurance receivable of US$4 million. This compares with a previously recorded bodily injury reserve of US$5.8 million and insurance receivable of US$4.3 million at April 1, 2007. Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corp., through subsidiary Todd Pacific Shipyards, repairs, maintains, overhauls, and builds government-owned and commercial vessels. Services range from minor repairs to major overhauls in dry dock at the Company's Seattle-area shipyard. The U.S. government, primarily through the Navy and the Coast Guard, accounts for more than 70 percent of the Company's shipyard sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Faces 54 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenaris S.A.'s subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of Sept. 30, 2007, had about 54 total pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, of which three claims are covered by insurance, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. Dalmine, as of June 30, 2007, had 53 asbestos-related claims, of which three claims were covered by insurance. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) In addition to the previously known 12 civil proceedings for work-related injuries stemming from the use of asbestos in its manufacturing processes during the period from 1960 to 1980, 40 asbestos-related out-of-court claims and one civil party claim, two new asbestos-related out-of-court claims have been notified to Dalmine during 2007-3rd quarter; while one claim was adjudicated, dismissed or settled. Aggregate settlement costs to date are EUR5.1 million. Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in connection with the claims above that are not yet settled is about EUR17.7 million (US$25.1 million) of which EUR8.7 million (UR$12.3 million) relate to the claims and proceedings notified to Dalmine during 2007. Based in Luxembourg, Tenaris S.A. was incorporated as a holding company for investments in steel pipe manufacturing and distributing operations. The Company holds, either directly or indirectly, controlling interests in various subsidiaries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has 3,430 Cases at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products Inc. recorded about 3,430 asbestos- related cases at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with about 3,270 cases 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, at June 30, 2007, recorded about 3,395 outstanding asbestos-related cases for which it was responsible for any related liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation. When it acquired this brake business, the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products made by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after Sept. 1, 2001. Since inception in September 2001 through Sept. 30, 2007, the amounts paid for settled claims are about US$6 million. In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain asbestos-related claims. The most recent actuarial study was performed as of Aug. 31, 2007. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs, ranging from US$23.8 million to US$55.2 million for the period through 2050. As a result, in September 2007 an incremental US$2.8 million provision in the Company's discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual increasing the reserve to about US$23.8 million. According to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and are reported in loss from discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated to range from US$18.7 million to US$32.6 million during the same period. Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products Inc. is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Park-Ohio Rise to 385 in Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Sept. 30, 2007, was a co-defendant in about 385 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,500 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. At June 30, 2007, the Company faced about 365 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,500 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) These asbestos cases relate to production and sale of asbestos- containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$10 million. In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million. Cleveland-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through Park-Ohio Industries Inc. and its subsidiaries, provides logistics services and makes engineered products for the aerospace, auto, semiconductor, and other industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $269.9M Losses, LAE at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses totaled US$269,959,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$279,969,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE totaled US$170,270,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$168,003,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The Company’s reserves for asbestos and environmental related liabilities are from business written in years 1985 and prior. The Company has exposure to losses from asbestos, environmental pollution and latent injury damage claims. Gross unpaid asbestos and environmental losses and LAE as of Sept. 30, 2007 were US$306.3 million, representing 5.9 percent of total gross unpaid losses and LAE compared with US$344.7 million, or 6.7 percent of total gross unpaid losses and LAE as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company did not incur net losses and LAE related to asbestos claims for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2007. Net losses and LAE incurred for asbestos claims decreased US$8.5 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. Included in this reduction is a net reserve increase of US$5 million, a US$17.3 million benefit resulting from the amortization of the deferred gain related to the 1995 Stop Loss Agreement with nSpire Re Ltd. and a loss of US$3.8 million related to the commutation of this agreement. For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, net losses and loss adjustment expenses incurred for asbestos claims increased US$3.8 million, due to the commutation of the 1995 Stop Loss Agreement. The Company’s survival ratio for asbestos and environmental- related liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2007 is 10 years. The Company’s underlying survival ratio for asbestos-related liabilities is 9 years. Stamford, Conn.-based Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. writes treaty and facultative reinsurance through its London Market (including Lloyd's of London syndicate Newline), EuroAsia, and Americas divisions. The Company offers marine, aerospace, and surety reinsurance. The Company's casualty lines include general and auto liability, professional liability, and accident and health. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in 29 States Pending v. IDEX, 5 Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- IDEX Corp. and five of its subsidiaries face lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products made with components that had asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. Claims have been filed in these 29 states: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance has been settled for reasonable amounts. One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. Northbrook, Ill.-based IDEX Corp. is an applied solutions company specializing in fluid and metering technologies, health and science technologies, dispensing equipment, and fire, safety and other diversified products built to its customers' specifications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Faces Lawsuits From Old Operations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek Inc. still faces asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. During the Company’s ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these claims, the Company is either contractually indemnified against liability for asbestos-related claims or believes that it has no liability for those claims. The Company seeks dismissal from these proceedings, and has also tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers of the previously acquired businesses. The Company has also filed late claims in the Federal-Mogul Corp. bankruptcy proceedings to recover attorney’s fees paid for the defense of these claims. The Company and Federal-Mogul entered into a settlement agreement under which the Company is entitled to receive amounts from a settlement trust established under Federal-Mogul’s reorganization plan and funded by insurance proceeds. The Company is entitled to receive 15 percent of the first US$20 million and 10 percent of the next US$25 million of insurance proceeds, up to a maximum of US$5.5 million, in exchange for withdrawing its bankruptcy claims and objections to the reorganization plan and execution of certain releases. The settlement is subject to final approval of the plan by the Bankruptcy Court. Several insurance carriers filed a declaratory judgment action relating to insurance coverage for those previously acquired businesses, seeking a determination that no coverage is available under the policies. Federal-Mogul, the Company and other defendants filed responsive pleadings and motions to dismiss the case, and the court recently granted the motions to dismiss the declaratory judgment action. Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek Inc. provides digital power control systems that are used to control motion and power primarily in material handling, elevator, telecommunications and energy delivery applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Has 26,376 Injury Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harsco Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded 26,376 asbestos personal injury claims filed against it, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. The Company, as of June 30, 2007, recorded 26,362 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos. The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor of asbestos fibers. Any component within a Company product which may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a supplier. Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25 million against about 90 defendants. Of the 26,376 cases, 25,914 were pending in the New York Supreme Court (a trial court) for New York County in New York State. The other claims, totaling 462, are filed in various counties in a number of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including New York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any amount claimed. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has obtained dismissal by stipulation, or summary judgment before trial, in 17,343 cases. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 298 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County. The Company’s insurance carrier has paid all legal and settlement costs and expenses relating to the asbestos litigation to date. The Company has liability insurance coverage available under various primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be available to substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred on these claims. Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corp.’s mill services unit, MultiServ, offers metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap management, and other services. The Company’s Access Services businesses, SGB Group and Patent Construction Systems, rent and sell concrete-forming equipment, scaffolding, and bridge-decking products. The Company's Harsco GasServ division makes gas tanks, fittings, valves, and related gear. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims Pending v. General Motors ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp., like most automobile manufacturers, continues to be subject to asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. The Company has seen these claims arise from three circumstances: (1) Majority of these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos used in brake components; (2) Limited numbers of claims have arisen from asbestos contained in the insulation and brakes used in the manufacturing of locomotives; and (3) Claims brought by contractors who allege exposure to asbestos-containing products while working on premises owned by the Company. A small percentage of the claims pending against the Company allege causation of a malignant disease associated with asbestos exposure. The amount expended on asbestos-related matters in any year depends on the number of claims filed, the amount of pretrial proceedings and the number of trials and settlements during the period. Prior to 2006, with respect to incurred but not yet reported claims, the Company concluded that a range of probable losses could not be reasonably estimated. Over the last several years, the Company has continued to accumulate data associated with asbestos claims. During the 2006-4th quarter, management determined that the Company had sufficient information to determine a reasonable estimate of its projected incurred, but not yet reported, claims that could be asserted over the next two years. Based on this analysis, the Company recorded a US$127 million charge for unasserted asbestos claims in 2006. The Company said it believes its liability for asbestos claims recorded at Sept. 30, 2007 is adequate. Detroit-based General Motors Corp. is engaged in the production and marketing of cars and trucks. The Company develops, manufactures and markets vehicles through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East, and GM Asia Pacific. The Company operates in two businesses, consisting of Automotive and Financing and Insurance Operations. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CEAC to Pay French Agency $300T for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exide Technologies' principal French subsidiary, Compagnie Europenne D Accumulateurs (d/b/a CEAC), has yet to pay a French governmental agency US$300,000 for asbestos-related claims. From 1957 to 1982, CEAC operated a plant using crocidolite asbestos fibers in the formation of battery cases, which, once formed, encapsulated the fibers. About 1,500 employees worked in the plant over the period. Since 1982, the French governmental agency responsible for worker illness claims received 64 employee claims alleging asbestos-related illnesses. For some of those claims, CEAC is obligated to and has indemnified the agency in accordance with French law for about US$400,000 in calendar 2004. In addition, CEAC has been adjudged liable to indemnify the agency for about US$100,000 during the same period for the dependents of four such claimants. The Company was not required to indemnify or make any payments subsequent to calendar year 2004. In 2007, CEAC has been adjudged to indemnify the agency for about US$300,000. Alpharetta, Ga.-based Exide Technologies produces and recycles lead-acid batteries. The Company’s four business segments, Transportation Americas, Transportation Europe and Rest of World (ROW), Industrial Energy Americas, and Industrial Energy Europe and ROW, provide stored electrical energy products and services for transportation and industrial applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Corp. Incurs $63M Losses at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Chubb Corp. states that casualty results in the first nine months and third quarter of 2007 were adversely affected by incurred losses of US$63 million related to asbestos claims. No further matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. The Chubb Corp., which is based in Warren, N.J., is known for comprehensive homeowners insurance for yacht owners. The Company also offers property/casualty insurance to companies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation Still Has 535 Claims at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related claims against Constellation Energy Group Inc. subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., have remained at about 535, according to the Company's quarterly report for the period ended Sept. 30, 2007. These individuals, who were never employees of Baltimore Gas or the Company, seek several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Asbestos-related claims against Baltimore Gas have risen to 535. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) Since 1993, Baltimore Gas and certain Company subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that Baltimore Gas and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. Baltimore Gas, the Company, and numerous other parties are defendants in these cases. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against Baltimore Gas and the Company in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims against the Company have been dismissed or resolved without any payment and a minority have been resolved for immaterial amounts. The remaining claims are pending in state courts in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group Inc. is an energy company that conducts its business through various subsidiaries including a merchant energy business and Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Corp. Subject to Liability Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chemtura Corp. is routinely subject to product liability claims, including claims related to its current products and asbestos- related claims concerning premises and historic products of its corporate affiliates and predecessors. No further matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. Middlebury, Conn.-based Chemtura Corp.'s chemical products are sold to industrial manufacturing customers for use as additives, ingredients, or intermediates. The Company's crop and consumer products are sold to dealers, distributors and retailers. The Company manufactures and sells more than 3,500 products and formulations in more than 100 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Faces Liability Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Briggs & Stratton Corp. is subject to various unresolved product liability actions, including asbestos-related liability actions, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 8, 2007. Wauwatosa, Wis.-based Briggs & Stratton Corp. produces air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. The Company designs, manufactures, markets and services these products for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide. The Company conducts its operations in two reportable segments: Engines and Power Products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.4M Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corp.'s estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable is about US$8.4 million, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of Sept. 30, 2007. Of the US$8.4 million, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of about US$325,000 over the next 12 months. The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability through March 31, 2025 and March 31, 2037 to range between US$5 million and US$14 million using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years. Amherst, N.Y.-based Columbus McKinnon Corp. manufactures and markets hoists, cranes, chain, conveyors, material handling systems, lift tables and component parts serving commercial and industrial end-user markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AON Corp. Has $71M Liabilities at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- AON Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded US$71 million liabilities associated with indemnities and were included in other liabilities in the condensed consolidated statements of financial position. Reinsurance recoverables and other assets related to these liabilities are US$91 million. The remaining insurance liabilities represent estimates of known and future claims expected to be settled over the next 20 to 30 years, principally with regard to asbestos, pollution and other health exposures. Chicago-based AON Corp. operates as an insurance brokerage firm and a reinsurance broker. The Company operates in three segments: commercial brokerage, consulting services, and consumer insurance underwriting. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: XL Gains From $13M Strengthening of Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- XL Capital Ltd., for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, recorded a strengthening of US$13 million related to asbestos- and environmental-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, property and other short-tail lines reserve releases were primarily due to favorable attritional loss activity in both the property catastrophe and property risk portfolios. Casualty reserve releases of US$35.4 million related primarily to non-U.S. casualty business written through the Company’s European and Bermuda operations and to a lesser extent the Company’s U.S. casualty business. Offsetting these casualty reserve releases was the strengthening of US$13 million. Hamilton, Bermuda-based XL Capital Ltd., through subsidiaries, provides insurance and reinsurance coverages, and financial products and services to industrial, commercial and professional service firms, insurance companies and other enterprises on a worldwide basis. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Holds Sinnott Case Appealable ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the 8th District Court of Appeals' ruling that dismissed an appeal filed by American Optical Corp., Abex Corp. (n/k/a Pneumo Abex LLC), and Viacom Inc., in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by James and Freda Sinnott. The suit is styled Sinnott et al., appellees v. Aqua-Chem Inc. et al.; American Optical Corp. et al., appellants. Judges Lanzinger, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Cupp, Moyer, and Pfeifer entered judgment of Case No. 2006-1604 on Oct. 25, 2007. In February 2004, before enactment of H.B. No. 292, which included new requirements for the filing of asbestos complaints under R.C. 2307.92, the Sinnotts filed a complaint against several companies, including American Optical, Pneumo Abex, and Viacom, as well as Aqua-Chem Inc. and many others, alleging injury to Mr. Sinnott from workplace exposure to products with asbestos. In April 2004, the Sinnotts dismissed without prejudice American Optical and Pneumo Abex. After the effective date of H.B. No. 292, in January 2005, the Sinnotts filed an amended complaint, again naming American Optical and Pneumo Abex as defendants. Because the amended complaint was filed after the effective date of H.B. No. 292, American Optical filed a motion to administratively dismiss the Sinnotts' claim for failure to comply with R.C. 2307.92. Pneumo Abex later joined that motion. Although the Sinnotts opposed the motion to dismiss, they also provided supplemental medical evidence and records regarding Mr. Sinnott's illness. American Optical continued to argue for administrative dismissal, claiming that the supplemental evidence did not satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2307.91 et seq. The trial court held that while the requirements of H.B. No. 292 applied to the amended complaint, the Sinnotts had fulfilled those requirements and the case could proceed to trial. Appellants filed an appeal with the 8th District Court of Appeals that was dismissed as premature. The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to determine whether orders finding that the Sinnotts have made the prima facie showings required by R.C. 2307.92 were final and appealable. The Supreme Court held that they are. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the 8th District Court of Appeals dismissing the appellants' appeal for lack of a final appealable order and remanded to the Court of Appeals for a determination on the merits of the appeal. Brent Coon & Associates, Christopher J. Hickey, and Mary Brigid Sweeney, represented James and Freda Sinnott. Tucker, Ellis & West L.L.P., Susan M. Audey, Irene C. Keyse- Walker, Christopher J. Caryl, and Jeffrey A. Healy, represented American Optical Corp. and Pneumo Abex LLC. Oldham & Dowling, and Reginald S. Kramer, represented CBS Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Set to Appeal $2M Dana Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ad Hoc Committee of Personal Injury Asbestos Claimants will take an appeal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from the Bankruptcy Court's approval of Dana Corp.'s request to settle 7,500 Asbestos personal injury claims asserted by parties represented by tort attorneys Robert Peirce & Associates; The Lanier Law Firm; Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Anotognoli; and Bevan & Associates. (Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 62; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Magner Assigned to ASARCO Estimation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit temporarily assigns Judge Elizabeth W. Magner of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the Southern District of Texas to mediate the asbestos liabilities proceedings of ASARCO LLC. Judge Magner will remain in the Southern District of Texas until ASARCO's asbestos issues are resolved, Judge Jones says. On Oct. 29, 2007 to Oct. 31, 2007, ASARCO, 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 in New Orleans before Judge Magner. The estimation hearing on ASARCO's asbestos liabilities will begin Jan. 2, 2008. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 60; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Wabtec ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. (d/b/a Wabtec) and certain of its affiliates continue to face claims in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Since 2000, the number of those claims has increased and the resolution of these claims may take a significant period of time. Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corp. and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC. On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former stockholder of RFPC contending that the Company assumed that entity’s liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to RFPC’s product was resolved in the Company’s favor. Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. As to RFPC, Management’s belief that any losses due to asbestos- related cases would not be material is based on the fact that RFPC owns insurance which provides coverage for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. To date, RFPC’s insurers have provided RFPC with defense and indemnity in these actions. As to the Company and its divisions, Management’s belief that asbestos-related cases will not have a material impact is also based on its position that it has no legal liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and that the former owners of Wabtec’s assets retained asbestos liabilities for the products at issue. Wilmerding, Pa.-based Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. provides products and services for the global rail industry. The Company's products are found virtually on all U.S. Locomotives, freight cars and passenger transit vehicles, as well as in more than 100 countries worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Actions Pending v. United Industrial ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Industrial and its former unit Detroit Stoker Co. have been facing, and may in the future face asbestos-related personal injury litigation stemming from commercial stoker products made by the Company and Detroit Stoker, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. Some of the parts and components of which used asbestos- containing material were fabricated and provided by third parties. Detroit Stoker was acquired by a newly formed corporation affiliated with a private investment group (Merger Parent) on Dec. 29, 2006 by way of a merger of Bram Acquisition Corp. (Merger Sub) with and into Detroit Stoker, with Detroit Stoker being the surviving corporation (the Merger). The use of asbestos-containing materials ceased in about 1981. The insurance coverage potentially available to the Company is substantial. Under the merger agreement, Merger Parent and the surviving corporation agreed to indemnify the Company for any asbestos- related litigation liabilities, including, without limitation, any asbestos liabilities arising from Detroit Stoker's operation as a division of the Company and the Company's own operations. To secure these indemnity obligations, Merger Parent established an escrow account for the sole benefit of the Company. Hunt Valley, Md.-based United Industrial Corp. designs, produces and supports aerospace and defense systems through its wholly owned subsidiary, AAI Corp., and AAI's direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries. Products and services include unmanned aircraft systems, training and simulation systems, automated aerospace test and maintenance equipment, armament systems, aviation ground support equipment, logistical and engineering services, and maintenance, repair and overhaul activities. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Unit Has 4,500 Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- One of United America Indemnity Ltd.'s insurance companies has been named in a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other unrelated insurance companies that involves such issues with regard to about 4,500 asbestos-related bodily injury claims and others that continue to be filed. The Company decreased its net reserves for prior years by US$5.3 million during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$16.2 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007. The decrease of US$5.3 million for the quarter was primarily comprised of a US$19.2 million reduction of net reserves for primary liability, umbrella and excess, construction defect, and lines in run-off due to both lower than expected frequency and severity emergence, offset by a US$13.9 million increase in net reserves for unallocated loss adjustment expenses (ULAE) and asbestos and environmental (A&E). A&E reserves increased due to an increase in frequency. Management increased gross and net A&E reserves during the 2007- 3rd quarter to reflect its best estimate of A&E exposures. United America Indemnity Ltd. provides specialty and surplus property and casualty insurance, including insurance for social service agencies and vacant properties. The Company also has operations in Bermuda through its Wind River Reinsurance unit, which offers treat (group risk) and facultative (individual risk) reinsurance, as well as specialty property and casualty insurance. The Company is based in George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Tenneco ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenneco Inc. is subject to a number of lawsuits initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. A small percentage of claims have been asserted by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars manufactured by the Pullman Co., one of the Company's subsidiaries. Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products. A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim against the Company. Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from various industries. The plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages. Lake Forest, Ill.-based Tenneco Inc. is an auto parts company that makes Walker exhaust systems and Monroe ride-control equipment for vehicle manufacturers and the replacement market. The Company's product line includes vibration-control systems, catalytic converters, and various exhaust system accessories. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Hotels Accrues $1M for Abatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, recorded US$1 million as accrual for asbestos abatement on the Company's redevelopment of the Sheraton Bal Harbour Beach Resort. The Company, in the three months ended June 30, 2007, recorded US$1 million as accrual for asbestos abatement on the Company’s redevelopment of the Sheraton Bal Harbour Beach Resort. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007) In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded net restructuring and other special charges of about US$48 million related to the Company’s redevelopment of Bal Harbour. The Company plans to demolish the current hotel and rebuild a St. Regis hotel along with branded residences and fractional units. Bal Harbour was closed for business on July 1, 2007, and the majority of employees were terminated. Based in White Plains, N.Y., Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. operates as a hotel and leisure company. The Company’s principal business is hotels and leisure, which is comprised of a worldwide hospitality network of about 900 full-service hotels, vacation ownership resorts and residential developments serving two markets: luxury and upscale. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Products Unit Has 97 Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 15 percent, or 97 suits, of the 651 pending lawsuits against Norcross Safety Products LLC's North Safety Products subsidiary are related to asbestos and other particles, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. About 15 percent, or 95 suits, of the 638 pending lawsuits against North Safety Products were related to asbestos and other particles. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) The Company is subject to various claims, in which most of these lawsuits and claims are product liability matters that arise out of the use of respiratory product lines made by North Safety Products. As of Sept. 29, 2007, North Safety Products, along with its predecessors and the former owners of such business were named as defendants in about 649 lawsuits involving respirators allegedly manufactured and sold by it or its predecessors. The Company is also monitoring an additional two lawsuits in which it feels that North Safety Products, its predecessors and the former owners of such businesses may be named as defendants. Collectively, these 651 lawsuits represent a total of about 8,451 plaintiffs. About 85 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging injury resulting from exposure to silica dust. These lawsuits allege that the purported injuries resulted in part from respirators that were negligently designed or manufactured. Invensys plc, formerly Siebe plc, is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for any losses, including costs of defending claims, resulting from respiratory products manufactured or sold prior to the acquisition of North Safety Products in October 1998. Oak Brook, Ill.-based Norcross Safety Products LLC designs, manufactures and markets products in the fragmented personal protection equipment industry. The Company manufactures personal protection equipment for worker in the general safety and preparedness, fire service and electrical safety industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren Records 76 Pending Suits at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ameren Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded 76 pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. These subsidiaries are: Union Electric Co. (UE), (Central Illinois Public Service Co. (CIPS), Ameren Energy Generating Co. (Genco), Central Illinois Light Co. (CILCO), and Illinois Power Co. (IP). As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 343 suits filed, 116 suits settled, and 151 suits dismissed. The Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. The total number of defendants named in each case is significant, as many as 189 parties are named in some pending cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases that were pending as of Sept. 30, 2007, the average number of parties was 71. The claims filed against Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs’ activities at its present or former electric generating plants. Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Co. (AERG). Most of IP’s plants were transferred to a Dynegy Holdings Inc. subsidiary before the Company’s acquisition of IP. As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO generating plants, CIPS or CILCO has contractually agreed to indemnify Genco or AERG for liabilities associated with asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the transfer. Each suit seeks unspecified damages, which, if awarded at trial, typically would be shared among various defendants. From July 1, 2007, through Sept. 30, 2007, nine more asbestos- related lawsuits were filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, mostly in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. Four lawsuits were settled. The Company, as of June 30, 2007, recorded 71 pending asbestos- related lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) St. Louis-based Ameren Corp. is a public utility holding company under PUHCA 2005, administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Company's subsidiaries operate rate-regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution businesses, rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution businesses and non-rate-regulated electric generation businesses in Missouri and Illinois. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Pending v. Essex Int'l. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Superior Essex Inc. says that, since about 1990, Essex International Inc. and certain subsidiaries have been named as defendants in product liability suits filed by electricians, other skilled tradesmen and others claiming injury, in most cases, from exposure to asbestos found in electrical wire products produced years ago. Essex International is a subsidiary of Superior Essex Holding Corp., which is a Company subsidiary. Litigation against various past insurers of Essex International who had previously refused to defend and indemnify Essex International against these lawsuits was settled during 1999. Under the settlement, Essex International was reimbursed for substantially all of its costs and expenses incurred in the defense of these lawsuits. The insurers have undertaken to defend, are currently directly defending and, if it should become necessary, will indemnify Essex International against those asbestos lawsuits, subject to the terms and limits of the respective policies. Under the plan of reorganization, certain of the claimants in these actions will be able to assert claims under applicable insurance coverage and other similar arrangements. Atlanta-based Superior Essex Corp. manufactures and supplies communications wire and cable products to telephone companies, CATV companies, distributors and systems integrators, and magnet wire and fabricated insulation materials to major original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, for use in motors, transformers, generators and electrical controls and, through its distribution operations, to smaller OEMs and the motor repair industry. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Limle Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the Court of Appeals for Franklin County's ruling, which stated that the Industrial Commission of Ohio did not err in granting Ferrall L. Limle compensation for personal disability. The case is styled State ex rel. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees. Judges Moyer, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, entered judgment of Case No. 2006-1579 on Oct. 23, 2007. Mr. Limle worked for E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. for about 27 years, during which he was exposed to asbestos. In 1992, he retired from DuPont and worked for Zane Trace School District. It is not known when or why Mr. Limle left that job. In 2001, Mr. Limle was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis, asbestosis, and pleural disease as a result of his exposure at DuPont, and a workers' compensation claim was allowed for these conditions. Three years later, Mr. Limle applied for permanent total disability compensation. The Commission granted Mr. Limle compensation for permanent total disability. The Commission found that Mr. Limle was medically incapable of sustained remunerative employment and his retirement from DuPont was not a voluntary and total abandonment of employment that would bar permanent total disability compensation. DuPont filed a complaint in mandamus in the Appeals Court, alleging that the Commission had abused its discretion in awarding compensation. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the order was supported by evidence. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Limle's retirement before becoming disabled did not bar compensation for permanent total disability. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Court. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP., and Robert E. Tait, represented E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Sandra E. Pinkerton, Assistant Attorney General, represented Industrial Commission of Ohio. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Inc. Faces Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roper Industries Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, with other industrial companies, face asbestos-related litigation claims filed in certain states. No significant resources have been required by the Company to respond to these cases and the Company said it believes it has valid defenses to such claims and. Given the state of these claims it is not possible to determine the potential liability, if any, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. Sarasota, Fla.-based Roper Industries Inc. designs, manufactures and distributes energy systems and controls, scientific and industrial imaging products and software, industrial technology products and radio frequency (RF) products and services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. Parker Drilling Ongoing in Miss. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parker Drilling Co. states that it was notified that certain of its subsidiaries, since August 2004, have been named in several complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that allege that they were employed by some of the named defendants between about 1965 and 1986. The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that allegedly made drilling related products containing asbestos that are the subject of the complaints. The complaints allege that the Company’s subsidiaries and other drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict liability and claims under the Jones Act and that the Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages. Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county in which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause of action allegedly accrued. Subsequent to the filing of amended complaints, the Company has joined with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel discovery to determine what plaintiffs have an employment relationship with which defendant, including whether or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship with subsidiaries of the Company. Out of 528 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 12 plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates as a defendant. Discovery is proceeding in groups of 60 based on selection of six by plaintiff’s counsel, six by defense counsel and 48 by random selection of the special master. Houston-based Parker Drilling Co. provides contract drilling and drilling-related services. The Company owns 43 rigs, including 24 land rigs, 17 U.S.-based barge drilling and workover rigs, and two international deep drilling barges. The Company drills worldwide and has worked in 54 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Records 14T Claims at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about 14,000 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. The Company faces suits filed in numerous state and federal courts by persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a result of exposure to dust from asbestos fibers. From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high- temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April 1958. The traditional asbestos personal injury lawsuits and claims relating to the production and sale of asbestos material typically allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts. Based on an analysis of the claims and suits pending as of Dec. 31, 2006, about 91 percent of plaintiffs and claimants either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. About eight percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of US$15 million or less, and one percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than US$15 million but less than US$100 million. Fewer than one percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages US$100 million or greater but less than US$123 million. The Company has claims-handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country. The criteria for those claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product made by the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. Some plaintiffs' counsel have historically withheld claims under these agreements for later presentation while focusing their attention on active litigation in the tort system. During the 2007-3rd quarter, the Company accelerated the disposition and payment of accumulated but previously unpresented claims. The Company said it believes that as of Sept. 30, 2007 there are about 10,000 claims against other defendants and which are likely to be asserted some time in the future against the Company. These claims are not included in the 14,000 pending "lawsuits and claims." The Company also faces other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co- defendants and property damage claimants. Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of Sept. 30, 2007, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about 358,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of about US$6,700. Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over a number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$55.2 million at Sept. 30, 2007 (US$82.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about US$3.11 billion through 2006, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability. Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois Inc. manufactures consumer-preferred, 100 percent recyclable glass containers. Established in 1903, the Company employs more than 25,000 people with 83 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries. In 2006, net sales from continuing glass operations were US$6.65 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M & F Worldwide Incurs $1M Costs for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- M & F Worldwide Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, incurred or expected to incur about US$1 million of costs related to asbestos-related claims, as to which it either has received or expects to receive about US$800,000 in insurance reimbursements. The Company’s non-operating contingent claims are generally associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC. Substantially all of these contingent claims are the financial responsibility of third parties and include various environmental and asbestos-related claims. As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and does not expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts related to these matters. In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc., the Company and two Company subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement. Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI substantially all of its assets and liabilities other than the assets and liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace Division and certain contingent liabilities and the related assets, including its historical insurance and indemnification arrangements. The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an indirect subsidiary of MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc., to undertake certain administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities, including environmental claims that Pneumo Abex did not transfer. Before 1988, a former subsidiary of Pneumo Abex manufactured certain asbestos-containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along with 10 to as many as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant in various personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to asbestos. Under indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas Inc. has ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter. In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary of Cooper Industries Inc. (now Cooper Industries LLC) assumed responsibility for substantially all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not indemnified by PepsiAmericas. Federal-Mogul Corp. purchased the Cooper Subsidiary in October 1998. In October 2001, the Cooper subsidiary filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and stopped performing its obligations to Pneumo Abex. Performance of the Cooper subsidiary’s obligations is guaranteed by Cooper Industries LLC. Since the bankruptcy filing of the Cooper subsidiary, Cooper Industries LLC has been fulfilling the Cooper subsidiary’s obligations to the extent that they are no longer being performed by the Cooper subsidiary. In November 2006, the Company entered into a series of agreements with the Cooper subsidiary, Cooper Industries LLC and others that proposed a settlement of the Company’s claims against the Cooper subsidiary relating to the 1994 sale transaction as part of the bankruptcy reorganization of the Cooper subsidiary. Pneumo Abex’s former subsidiary maintained product liability insurance covering substantially all of the period during which it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this coverage. As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage agreements with other carriers, payments by the PepsiAmericas, the Cooper subsidiary and Cooper Industries LLC under their obligations to Pneumo Abex, and the Transfer Agreement, all of its monthly expenditures for asbestos-related claims other than as described below are managed and paid by others. The future aggregate cost of cleanup and related expenses attributable to Pneumo Abex with respect to matters for which Pneumo Abex, together with numerous other third parties, have been named potentially responsible parties should be substantially less than US$50 million, and the Company does not itself expect to pay any of these costs. New York-based M&F Worldwide Corp.'s Mafco Worldwide flavorings firm makes licorice extract. The Company's primary flavoring brand is Magnasweet, but the Company also sells Right Dress, gardening mulch that is a byproduct of processing licorice root. The Company has expanded into the security printing business through its acquisition of Clarke American Checks from Honeywell. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Faces 31 Lawsuits at Oct. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Noble Corp., at Oct. 31, 2007, recorded about 31 asbestos- related lawsuits, in which the Company is one of many defendants, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. None of these suits are scheduled for trial in 2007. The Company faces lawsuits in which the claimants seek unspecified amounts of monetary damages for personal injury, including claims under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these suits is not currently determinable. Sugar Land, Tex.-based Noble Corp. provides deepwater oil and gas contract drilling services. The Company, with operations in waters off the coasts of five continents, has a fleet of 63 offshore drilling units: three submersibles, three drillships, 13 semisubmersibles, and 44 jack-up rigs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Victim Gets Payout Days Before Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- George Alexander, who filed a GBP100,000 compensation case against his employers for exposure to asbestos, won his High Court bid three days before he died, The Argus reports. Mr. Alexander died on Nov. 25, 2007. The 71-year-old Mr. Alexander claimed his illness was caused by deadly fibers he inhaled while working as an electrical fitter between 1973 and 1981. On Nov. 22, 2007, Mr. Alexander learned the council he used to work for, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, had settled his High Court claim out of court in a deal worth GBP88,000. Mr. Alexander claimed the mesothelioma he developed later in life cut his life expectancy by 12 years. A writ issued by Mr. Alexander through solicitors Simpson Millar said he worked in a municipal laundry and swimming pool, maintaining boilers and pipework. Mr. Alexander said the pipes were lagged with old, crumbling asbestos, which fell on to the floor where he worked and walked. The writ claimed Mr. Alexander once disturbed asbestos lagging as part of work replacing an old boiler door. In 1978, he worked near contractors as they replaced asbestos. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Calls for an SA Specialist Tribunal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tanya Segelov, the lawyer of asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton, says South Australia needs a specialist tribunal to expedite dust disease cases, ABC News reports. Ms. Segelov says the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal moves quickly and makes judges immediately available for terminally-ill victims. Ms. Segolov says had Mr. Banton's case been heard in SA's District Court, it probably would not have been resolved before his death on Nov. 27, 2007. Ms. Segolov says it was Mr. Banton's wish that other states, including SA, have specialist tribunals to expedite dust disease cases stemming from asbestos use. Ms. Segelov says, while the courts do their best to fast-track cases, they are ultimately reliant on the availability of judges. However, the SA Government is defending the system. The Attorney-General's office has issued a statement, saying it believes the current system is the best way to fast-track asbestos cases. Terry Miller, of the Asbestos Victims Association, wishes the SA Government would reconsider its rejection of having a specialist tribunal for cases. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Settles Case with Aussie Campaigner ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos victim and campaigner Bernie Banton, on Nov. 22, 2007, won a final victory against James Hardie Industries N.V., The Australian reports. However, Mr. Banton died on Nov. 27, 2007. Mr. Banton's lawyers achieved a compensation settlement in his case against Hardie in the NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal, which could be a test case for others. Mr. Banton reached the confidential agreement with Hardie's compensation fund hours before prominent witnesses including former Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary Greg Combet were due to give evidence. At a press conference after the settlement was accepted by the tribunal, Mr Banton's lawyer Tanya Segelov would not discuss the terms. Karen Banton, Mr. Banton's wife, said her husband's case, as with his role in the campaign to make Hardie meet its responsibilities to its asbestos victims, was not about money. Mr. Banton's case was the first against Hardie to seek not just financial compensation, but exemplary damages, in which Hardie would be punished for knowingly exposing its workers to potentially fatal levels of asbestos dust. Ms. Segelov said the fact that Mr. Banton had brought the case for exemplary damages and achieved a settlement could enable other asbestos victims to follow the same approach. Mr. Banton contracted asbestosis from working in a Hardie asbestos insulation operation in the 1960s and 1970s. He received an AUD800,000 payout in 2000 from a former Hardie subsidiary, but in 2007 contracted mesothelioma, which is caused by asbestos and takes 30 to 40 years to manifest after exposure. Hardie had unsuccessfully asked the NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal, a division of the Supreme Court, to deny Mr. Banton the right to pursue exemplary damages, and contested his diagnosis. Mr. Banton had also sought aggravated damages for the stress he endured during the successful fight to make Hardie agree to pay billions of dollars to thousands of future victims of its asbestos building products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.M. Best Sees $65B Total Incurred Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- A.M. Best Co. Inc., in its latest report, estimated that the ultimate incurred asbestos losses totaled US$65 billion, Business Insurance reports. According to Best's report, the U.S. property/casualty insurance industry is approaching full funding for its asbestos losses, but a “significant gap” remains in funding for its environmental losses. The report on the industry’s asbestos and environmental liabilities, which was issued on Nov. 26, 2007, said there is a US$2.8 billion funding gap for asbestos liabilities, with nearly 96 percent of ultimate asbestos loss estimates funded through year-end 2006. This compares with a 92 percent funding level in 2005 and a 70 percent funding level in 2002, when the asbestos deficit was as high as US$20 billion, according to the report. The report stated, “The industry has been funding its pollution liabilities very slowly based on its optimistic assumptions about underlying claims trends.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Still Has Compensation Issues ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Hardie Industries N.V. continues to struggle with ongoing asbestos compensation issues, and a whole new potential round of damaging litigation, at the same time that its U.S. earnings which account for 80 percent of its income slumped 32 percent in the last quarter, The National Business Review reports. The former Australian company has already moved its base to the Netherlands, established an AUD1.5 billion fund for asbestos compensation claims, and has 10 former directors facing court charges over the handling of the fund and misleading statements to the market. Now, the Company has reached an out of court settlement with asbestosis victim Bernie Banton for exemplary damages. The amount is confidential, but comes on top of the AUD800,000 compensation payment Mr. Banton received from the trust fund in 2000, and opens the door for exemplary damages claims from other victims. There are concerns that, after the first two waves of victims (asbestos miners first, and workers in factories and large-scale users of asbestos second), there may be a third wave of litigation from victims exposed to asbestos in their homes or public buildings. The case against the 10 former directors, brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, also contains a clause requiring a separate AUD1.9 billion fund be set up. The court case does not get under way until September 2008, but it is potentially yet another time bomb for the Company. There is still the possibility of litigation from the U.S., where a lot of Hardie asbestos products were sold. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dukeminster Accused of Negligence in Devon ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dukeminster, a property developer, has been accused of negligence for leaving asbestos exposed at a site in the city of Exeter, in Devon, England, which is being cleared for housing, Express & Echo reports. Exeter city councilor Marcel Choules criticized Dukeminster after a resident alerted him to the asbestos risk at the old Royal Naval Storage Depot site, off Topsham Road. The member for the Priory ward notified environmental health officers about the hazardous material at the site. Councilor Choules said that asbestos could be seen clearly from the gate of the site and was in a large container with the doors open. Photographic evidence was passed to the council's environmental health department. Asbestos was used in the U.K. building industry from the 1940s to the 1980s, until it was found that many workers who breathed in dust from the material developed cancers. The Dukeminster spokesman said that there was 24-hour security on the site and when buildings were being demolished the site could be dangerous. A spokesman for Exeter City Council confirmed that the environmental health department had contacted the Health and Safety Executive about the presence of asbestos at the site. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Gov't. Bldg. in Cyprus Continues ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos removal from the roof of one of the Government Printing Office's buildings in Nicosia, Cyprus, is ongoing, Cyprus Mail reports. A spokesman told the Mail that the work, which began over the weekend, will be completed as part of a government plan to remove all asbestos from government buildings. “The asbestos was on the roof of a storage building which we use,” the spokesman explained, adding that no members of staff work on the premises. He added, “It is being removed for environmental and health reasons and will be replaced by solar panels.” In 2005, a technical committee of the Labour and Environment ministries found that the presence alone of asbestos in buildings does not pose health risks, but that the material becomes dangerous when corroded. Heaviest exposures to asbestos occur in the construction industry, particularly during the removal of asbestos during renovation or demolition. The Government Printing Office was founded by the British colonial administration in 1878. The existing premises were built in 1915. New Securities Fraud Cases ERICSSON LM: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action on November 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Ericsson LM Telephone Co. (Nasdaq:ERIC) and (Stockholm:ERICA) (Stockholm:ERICB) between February 2, 2007 and November 20, 2007, inclusive. The lawsuit -- filed against Ericsson, its CEO Carl-Henrik Svanberg, and its former CFO Karl-Henrik Sundstrom -- alleges Ericsson and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ericsson is a Sweden-based company that offers a portfolio of telecommunication and data communication systems and services covering a range of technologies. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. The complaint alleges that Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that: (i) the Company was experiencing declining sales in its networks due to lower sales of expansions and upgrades of mobile networks; (ii) sales in Western Europe were declining due to operator consolidation in several markets; and (iii) as a result, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's business, such as the repeated reassurances of continued strong earnings growth in 2007. On October 16, 2007, before the market opened, Ericsson issued a release entitled "Lower than expected results for Ericsson in third quarter 2007." That same day, after these results were issued, Ericsson's stock collapsed to close at $31.33 per share, a decline of 24%, on volume of 42.7 million shares. On November 20, 2007, Ericsson finally acknowledged that it had experienced, and would continue to experience, lower customer demand across product lines and regions. The Company also again lowered sales projections for the rest of 2007 and 2008. The Company's shares declined an additional 12% after this disclosure. For more information, contact: Christopher Keller, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP Phone: 800-321-0476 LDK SOLAR: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of LDK Solar Co., Ltd. during the period June 1, 2007 through October 8, 2007, inclusive. The complaint charges LDK and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company had significantly less polysilicon feedstock inventory than it was reporting; (2) that only a fraction of the feedstock inventory that the Company did have was of sufficient quality for use in the manufacture of silicone wafers; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 7, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Brian D. Brooks Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP Phone: 212-682-1818 E-mail: bbrooks@murrayfrank.com Website: http://www.murrayfrank.com LEAP WIRELESS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Leap Wireless International, Inc. common stock during the period between January 7, 2005 and November 8, 2007. Lead plaintiff filing deadline is no later than 60 days from November 27, 2007. The complaint charges Leap and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Leap is a wireless communications carrier that offers digital wireless service under the Cricket Communications, Inc. and Jump Mobile brands in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, prospects and financial results. As a result of defendants' false statements, Leap stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching its all-time high of $98.33 per share in July 2007. On August 7, 2007, Leap announced disastrous second quarter 2007 results, including missing its revenue projections, soaring expenses and a high customer turnover rate, causing its stock to decline from $80.36 per share on August 7, 2007 to $60.00 per on August 8, 2007 - a one-day decline of 25%. Then, on November 9, 2007, before the market opened, defendants disclosed that Leap would be required to restate its financial statements for fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006 and for the first and second quarters of fiscal year 2007 to correct for errors in its previously reported service revenues, equipment revenues and operating expenses, causing its stock to drop $21.38 per share. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its service revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); (b) the Company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its equipment revenue and cost of equipment in violation of GAAP; (c) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as a result, the Company's projections and reported results issued during the Class Period were based upon defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts; and (d) given the Company's exposure to subprime consumers and the intense competition in the low-cost cell carriers market Leap was facing, the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its ability to maintain its customer turnover rate and net customer additions. As a result, the Company's projections issued during the Class Period were at a minimum reckless. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Leap common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Coughlin Stoia Geller on the Net: http://www.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 * * *