/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 23 Headlines BANK MIZRAHI: Faces $65M Lawsuit Over Bank Interest Rates BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Heparin After Adverse Reaction Claims BIOPURE CORP: Mass. Court Okays $10M Securities Suit Settlement BULKMATIC TRANSPORT: Settles Ill. Litigation by OOIDA, Truckers CHATTEM INC: Still Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Sale of “Garlique” COLORADO: Suit Over Medicaid Eligibility of Disabled Certified ENERGY CONVERSION: Former Workers Sue to Recoup Wage Investment GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suits Over Research Coverage of Issuers GOLDMAN SACHS: N.Y. Securities Suit Class Certification Sought GOLDMAN SACHS: NYSE Case Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over NYSE's SuperDot GOLDMAN SACHS: Certification Sought in Futures and Options Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Nixing of Short Sale Antitrust Suit Appealed HOLLAND AMERICA: Continues to Face Passenger's Lawsuit in Wash. INLAND WESTERN: Co-Lead Counsel Named in Ill. Securities Suit JANSSEN-ORTHO INC: Faces Negligence Suit Over Evra in B.C. Court MISSISSIPPI: Court Approves Plan to Improve Foster Care Program NEW YORK: East Hampton Employees Oppose Health Insurance Switch NUCEL LABS: Recalls Non-Sterile Eye Drops, Eye/Ear Wash OHIO: Attorney General, Sheriffs Face Suit Over Sex Offender Law RITE AID: S.C. Management Trainee Files Suit for Unpaid Overtime TJ PROMOTIONS: Recalls Coin Banks on Paint's High Lead Level UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: Cleared of Gender Equity Complaints * Coughlin Stoia Adds Intellectual Property Litigation Group Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MYR Group Inc. Subject to Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Records 160 Claims at Nov. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Cites $1.998B Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Records $34M A&E Reserve at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals in Plastics Engineering Case Stayed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace & Co. Settles 48 Claims for $60M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Class Action Suit Claims CSI Toy Has Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.405B Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CertainTeed Drop to 74T at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee Names Examiner in Tersigni Inquiry ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. County Worker Fired Over Asbestos Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doctor Files GBP1M Suit v. Allen & Hanburys ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Sees Asbestos Payments of $55M in '08 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane's Liability Drops to $943M at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Reserves $546M for Litigation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Records $15M Charge at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Judge Upholds Ruling in SDG&E Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brit Campaign Urges Govt to Overturn Ruling ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Death toll in English Town Reaches Its Peak ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Libby Claimants' Stay Appeal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electric Fitter's Death Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ark. County Courthouse Cleanup to Cost $50T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Gov't. Expends EUR16M for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 80,899 Claims Pending v. Crane at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co.'s Appeal on Norris Action Pending ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $87.5M for Settlement, Defense ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records Asset of $340M at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $50.4M Assets, Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.001B Liability at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ormet Corp. 9019 Motion Affirmed on Jan. 23 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nuclear Plant Workers Show High Cancer Risk ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Urges Collinsville to Contain Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Plumber Gets Payout From U.K. University ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Africans Still Suffer from Asbestos Illness ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Cites $29M Provision at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Assembly Member Settles Libel Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tremolite Discovered at 3 Tokyo Facilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Astech-Marmon Wins Right to Expand Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scapa & Wallace Told to Pay $1.72M Damages ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records $1.7B Contingency at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp. Liability Still at $512.5M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO OKs Moving Limitation Period to July ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants File Appeal to Dana's Third Plan ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor, Inc. Liabilities Drop to $40M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Corp. Has $43M Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Legacy Receivable Remains at $12M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sherman, Alexander Cases Remanded in Nov. New Securities Fraud Cases SHORETEL INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal. UBS AG: Curtis V. Trinko Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ********* BANK MIZRAHI: Faces $65M Lawsuit Over Bank Interest Rates ----------------------------------------------------------- Bank Mizrahi-Tefaho is facing a $65.07 million class action claiming the bank misled customers regarding interest rates, Hila Raz of the Haaretz Daily reports. Daniel Weiss, who held two short-term deposits during 2001-05 at the bank's Bat Yam branch, claims the bank does not adjust its interest rate on short-term deposits according to fluctuations in interest rates at the Bank of Israel. Allegedly, the bank lowers interest paid on short-term deposits, when it thought the Bank of Israel would be lowering its interest rates, but does not raise it when forecasts that the Bank of Israel would raise interest rates. The criteria for increased or decreased interest rates paid by the bank on short-term deposits should have been the prime interest rate, which fluctuates according to Bank of Israel interest, the report said. "The bank's behavior to its customers was unfair, unacceptable and in bad faith, when it profited from its customers while manipulating interest rates at its own discretion," Mr. Weiss claims, according to the report. The report said a Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot spokesman said that a copy of the request for approval of the class action had not been received yet. The principal activities of Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Limited, formerly known as United Mizrahi Bank Limited, is the provision of commercial banking and mortgage banking services. Other activities include financial leasing, investment advice, management of provident and mutual funds, and securities brokerage. BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Heparin After Adverse Reaction Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter Healthcare Corp. has announced a voluntary recall of nine lots of heparin sodium injection 1000 units/ml. 10 ml. And 30 ml. multi-dose vials. The company began recalling the lots on January 17, 2008 as a precautionary measure due to an increase in the number of reports of adverse patient reactions that may be associated with the product. Baxter is conducting a thorough investigation of these reports to identify the cause of the increase in allergic- type reactions. Adverse patient reactions have included: stomach pain or discomfort, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, decreased or low blood pressure, chest pain, fast heart rate, dizziness, fainting, unresponsiveness, shortness of breath, feeling your heart beat strong or fast, drug ineffectiveness, burning sensation, redness or paleness of skin, abnormal sensation of the skin, mouth or lips, flushing, increased sweating, decreased skin sensitivity, headache, feeling unwell, restlessness, watery eyes, throat swelling, thirst and difficulty opening the mouth. Some of these reactions may be severe or life threatening. Heparin is a prescription, injectable blood anticoagulant (also called a blood thinner). The 1,000 units/mL multi-dose vials are primarily used for hemodialysis and cardiac invasive procedures. To date, the company has not observed a significant increase in adverse event reports occurring with any other of its heparin presentations. Customers have been instructed to discontinue use and segregate the recalled product from the rest of their inventory. Customers should then contact Baxter to arrange for return and replacement product. Customers with recalled product purchased indirectly should contact their wholesaler or distributor for return and replacement product. Customers with questions may contact Baxter at 1-800-667-0959. Representatives are available Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. CT. Baxter International Inc. through its subsidiaries, assists healthcare professionals and their patients with the treatment of complex medical conditions, including cancer, hemophilia, immune disorders, kidney disease and trauma. The company applies its expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to make a meaningful difference in patients' lives. For more information about Baxter, visit http://www.baxter.com. BIOPURE CORP: Mass. Court Okays $10M Securities Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered final judgment dismissing claims with prejudice, as well as granting final approval to a proposed $10,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-12628-NG." Case Background Following the announcement in December 2003 that Biopure was being investigated by the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission, the company, two directors (one a former director), its former chief executive officer, former chief technology officer and former chief financial officer were named as defendants in a number of similar, purported class-action complaints, filed between Dec. 30, 2003 and Jan. 28, 2004 by alleged purchasers of the company's common stock (Class Action Reporter, July 26, 2007) . According to the complaint, Biopure artificially inflated its stock price by misrepresenting the prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the marketing of the company's main product, Hemopure. The lawsuit says that the company knew by virtue of its ongoing communications with the U.S. FDA that regulators had strong reservations about Hemopure's safety but continued to publicly hype the product throughout the class period. Hemopure is an investigational product for the treatment of acutely anemic surgical patients and for the elimination, delay or reduction of red blood cell transfusions in these patients. It is a human blood substitute derived from cow's blood, which acts like red blood cells to deliver oxygen to the body. Unlike donated blood, Hemopure does not have to be matched to a patient's blood type. The truth about Hemopure began to emerge on Dec. 24, 2003. After the close of the markets on Christmas Eve, Biopure announced a potential SEC inquiry for securities fraud and, for the first time, disclosed substantial problems with its Hemopure product and the FDA approval process. Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single action as, "Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation." On July 23, 2004, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who acquired the common stock of Biopure during the period of March 17, 2003 through Dec. 24, 2003 and names as additional defendants Ronald F. Richards, Howard P. Richman, Charles A. Sanders and J. Richard Crout. On Oct. 6, 2004, defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint and on Dec. 7, 2004 lead plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions. Defendants filed their replies in further support of their motions on Jan. 24, 2005. On Feb. 2, 2006 the Judge heard oral arguments on all outstanding motions. On March 28, 2006, Judge Nancy Gertner issued an order denying the motions to dismiss and on the same date the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which the defendants filed answers to on April 28, 2006. On May 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification on July 25, 2006. The consolidated matter was settled and the District Court entered final judgment dismissing the claims with prejudice on Sept. 24, 2007, according to the company's Jan. 29, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is "In Re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-12628-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner. Representing the plaintiffs are: Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 E-mail: ted@shulaw.com - and - Gilman and Pastor, LLP Suite 500, Stonehill Corporate Center, 999 Broadway Saugus, MA 01906 Phone: 781-231-7850 Fax: 781-231-7840 Web site: http://www.gilmanpastor.com Representing the defendants are: Bingham McCutchen LLP, Esq. 150 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-951-8717 Fax: 617-951-8736 E-mail: robert.buhlman@bingham.com - and - Mary P. Cormier, Esq. Edwards & Angell, LLP 101 Federal St. Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-951-2225 Fax: 617-439-4170 E-mail: mcormier@edwardsangell.com BULKMATIC TRANSPORT: Settles Ill. Litigation by OOIDA, Truckers --------------------------------------------------------------- Bulkmatic Transport Co. reached a settlement in a purported class action pending against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit, “Owner-Operator, et al. v. Bulkmatic Trans Co., Case No. 1:03-cv-07869,” was filed on Nov. 5, 2003. It names as plaintiffs: -- Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., -- Andrey Barslavets, -- David P. Paul, -- John W. Robertson, -- John A. Smith, -- Joseph R. Lopez, -- Kenneth S. Ward, -- Nelson Hernandez, -- Peter C. Mango, -- Simon Jamel, and -- Thomas R Taylor In general, the suit alleges that Bulkmatic violated the federal leasing regulations by failing to pay drivers as specified in the lease agreement. The lease provided for payment of compensation based on a percentage of gross revenue. In August 2007, the court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs interpreting “gross revenue” as used in the lease agreement to include all charges made by Bulkmatic to its customers. The court found that Bulkmatic’s lease violated the leasing regulations. A settlement of the suit resolves all remaining issues in the litigation, including a compromise on the amounts in alleged unpaid compensation claimed by each of the 10 individual plaintiffs, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The suit is “Owner-Operator, et al. v. Bulkmatic Trans Co., Case No. 1:03-cv-07869,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Michael T. Mason presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Albert Edwin Fowerbaugh, Jr. Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 443-0700 E-mail: afowerbaugh@lockelord.com Representing the defendants is: Joseph A. Strubbe, Esq. Vedder Price P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 609-7500 E-mail: jstrubbe@vedderprice.com CHATTEM INC: Still Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Sale of “Garlique” ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chattem, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California accusing it of defrauding customers by selling them the dietary supplement Garlique. Named plaintiff Robert O. Wilkinson alleges that Chattem manufactures, markets, distributes and promotes the product known as Garlique, a diet supplement sold as an enteric-coated tablet containing garlic that Chattem contends is "America's #1 selling garlic supplement," (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2007). The complaint, filed on May 24, 2007, claims Chattem has actively promoted the product as an aid to cardiovascular health, using celebrities such as television talk show host Larry King. The labeling and packaging of the product states that it is "Cholesterol's Natural Enemy" and that it "Supports Cardiovascular Health." In support of its claims, Chattem has referenced a 2001 analysis of data pooled from 37 studies that indicated that garlic slightly lowered high blood cholesterol levels when taken for three months. However, further analysis by those same researchers showed that garlic had no effect on cholesterol levels when taken for six months or more. Furthermore, when a panel of national experts reviewed the two studies, they determined that the effect of garlic on cholesterol was unclear. Plaintiff claims he had purchased, used and ingested the product for its intended and foreseeable purpose as marketed, promoted, advertised and labeled by Chattem as forth in the complaint. He relied on these representations by Chattem in purchasing and using the product. However, as he has now learned, the product does not provide the benefits of cholesterol reduction as claimed by Chattem. As a result, he contends that he has been misled by Chattem's false claims into purchasing and paying for a product that did not perform as promised when he used it for its intended and foreseeable purpose as marketed, promoted, advertised and labeled by Chattem, and that he has as a direct result been deprived of the benefit of his bargain and has spent money on a product that did not have any value, a product he would not have purchased and used had he known the true facts about it. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other consumers who purchased, used and ingested the product. The complaint questions whether: (a) defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of the product were deceptive or unfair in any respect, thereby violating California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et. seq.; (b) defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of the product were deceptive or false in any respect, thereby violating California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et. seq.; (c) defendant breached implied warranties in its sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and class members; (d) defendant breached express warranties in its sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and class members; (e) defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of the product unjustly enriched defendant at the expense of, and to the detriment of, plaintiff and class members; (f) defendant fraudulently marketed, promoted, advertised, labeled and sold the product; (g) defendant breached California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et. seq., in its sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and class members; and (h) defendant's conduct as set forth injured consumers and if so,. the extent of the injury. Plaintiff prays for the following relief: -- for an order certifying that the action may be maintained as a class action; -- for an award of equitable relief as follows: (i) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices and deceptive marketing, promotion labeling and advertising described in the complaint; (ii) requiring defendant to make full restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the conduct described; (iii) requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains flowing from the conduct described; (iv) requiring defendant to provide public notice of the true nature of the product. -- for actual and punitive damages under the CLRA in an amount to be proven at trial, including any damages as may be provided for by statute upon the filing of a First Amended Complaint should the demanded corrections not take place within the 30-day notice period; -- for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; -- for actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial; -- for an award of costs and any other relief the court might deem appropriate; and -- for pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. The company was served with this lawsuit on July 5, 2007. The company reported no new development in the matter in its Jan. 29, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2052 The suit is "Wilkinson v. Chattem, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00952- W-AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, under Judge Thomas J. Whelan, with referral to Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. Representing plaintiffs is: Harold M. Hewell, Esq. Hewell Law Firm 402 West Broadway, Fourth Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 235-6854 Fax: (619) 235-9122 E-mail: hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com COLORADO: Suit Over Medicaid Eligibility of Disabled Certified -------------------------------------------------------------- The Denver District Court greatly expanded the state's responsibility to provide an opportunity to appeal decisions denying eligibility for services for people with developmental disabilities, ruling that all persons denied services or whose services were terminated between July 10, 2004 and the date of the court's future entry of judgment should be so entitled. Two weeks ago that court found the Colorado Departments of Human Services and Health Care Policy and Financing liable to the three named plaintiffs for those services. In this ruling the Court expanded the State's responsibility to many more persons similarly situated. On July 10, 2006, the Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People and the law firm of Fox & Robertson, PC filed a class action on behalf of three plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals with developmental disabilities (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2006). The complaint alleges the plaintiffs were denied eligibility for Medicaid services or was terminated without being afforded notice and an opportunity to appeal the adverse decisions through a state-level hearing. The suit brings claims on behalf of all individuals with developmental disabilities who applied for Medicaid-funded developmental disabilities services and were found ineligible and those who were eligible for Medicaid services and subsequently had their eligibility terminated by the state system in place to provide developmental disabilities services. Initially, The Legal Center filed its complaint on behalf of Ann Rossart, a 50-year-old-woman with developmental disabilities whose application for Medicaid services was denied by Developmental Pathways, Inc., the Community Centered Board responsible for determining eligibility, and administering Medicaid programs in the city of Aurora as well as Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas counties. Upon denial of Ms. Rossart's application, the plaintiff contends that she should have been given notice that she had the right to appeal to a state-level evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge. As stated in the lawsuit, Ms. Rossart was only offered a dispute resolution conference with Developmental Pathways and a paper appeal to Marva Livingston Hammons, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Human Services. In the recent ruling the court agreed that the problem involved more people than could be individually named. The court then required the parties to draft the language of a permanent injunction directing the defendants to cease the conduct it had found illegal and also a plan to rectify the problem in the future. Defendants in this case are: -- John Meeker, Executive Director for Developmental Pathways, and Developmental Pathways, Inc. -- a community centered board charged with providing services and support to persons with developmental disabilities; -- Marva Livingston Hammons, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services; and -- Stephen Tool, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People - http://www.thelegalcenter.org-- is a nonprofit organization established in 1976. The Legal Center uses the legal system to protect and promote the rights of individuals with disabilities and older people through direct legal representation, protection and advocacy, education and legislative analysis. Representing the plaintiffs are: Andrea Faley Liz Fuselier Mark Ivandick The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People Phone: 303-722-0300 ext. 241 or 303-722-0300 ext. 229 or 303-722-0300, ext. 231 E-mail: afaley@thelegalcenter.org or fuselier@thelegalcenter.org or Ivandick@thelegalcenter.org - and - Tim Fox Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910-16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.595.9700 Fax: 303.595.9705 E-Mail: mail@foxrob.com Website: http://www.foxrob.com/attorneys.htm ENERGY CONVERSION: Former Workers Sue to Recoup Wage Investment --------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Conversion Systems is facing a class action accusing it of failing to reimburse former employees for their contributions to a mandatory Wage Investment Plan, Steve Reed of Dunn Daily Record reports. Dunn attorney Brent Adams filed the complaint on behalf of two dozen former employees. He is requesting jury trial in Wake County Superior Court. Mr. Adams is suing on behalf of people who no longer worked for the company and did not receive reimbursement when the company paid some amount to workers in 2007. According to Mr. Adams, the plaintiffs are asking to be paid back all the money they lent the company with 8 percent interest, treble damage, and punitive damages in excess of $10,000. Energy Conversion General Manager Danny Avery said he was not aware of the lawsuit, according to the report. The plaintiffs are Connie Pope, Delma Ricky Wood, Annie McNair, Johnny Bryant, Jeff Thomas, Gwendolyn A. Poe-Pittman, Jeremy McLamb, Michael Floyd, Mabeline Harris, Deborah Register, Martin Denton, Sandra Frazier, Linda Herring, Sharon Coley, Francine Reese, Gloria Devone, Vivian C. Bordley, Martha Turlington, Linda Pittman, Alice Smith, Saundra Jorge, Rosa Crowell, Agnes Holden, June Gilliam. The company underwent a major restructure in October 2007 in which 100 jobs were eliminated, according to the report. For more information, contact: Brent Adams, Esq. Brent Adams & Associates 119 Lucknow Square Dunn, N.C. 28334 Phone: 1-800-849-5931 (910) 892-8177 Fax: (910) 892-0652 GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suits Over Research Coverage of Issuers ------------------------------------------------------------ Goldman, Sachs & Co. is one of several investment firms that have been named as defendants in substantively identical purported class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with research coverage of certain issuers and seeking compensatory damages, according to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007. The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. RSL Communications Lawsuit In one such action, relating to coverage of RSL Communications, Inc. and commenced on July 15, 2003, Goldman, Sachs & Co.’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, by an order dated Jan. 26, 2007, vacated the district court’s class certification and remanded for reconsideration. Exodus Communications Lawsuit Goldman, Sachs & Co. is also a defendant in several actions relating to research coverage of Exodus Communications, Inc. that commenced beginning in May 2003. The actions were consolidated, Goldman, Sachs & Co.’s motion to dismiss was granted with leave to replead, and plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted by order dated Dec. 4, 2007. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration on Dec. 21, 2007. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: N.Y. Securities Suit Class Certification Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the matter, "Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Case No. 1:04-cv-02236-KMK," are seeking class certification for the case, which was filed against Goldman, Sachs & Co., and its chief executive, Henry M. Paulson, Jr. The purported class action was originally filed on July 18, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. stock from July 1, 1999 through May 7, 2002. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated the federal securities laws in connection with the firm's research activities. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and/or rescission. The action was transferred on consent to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Aug. 30, 2004, and the district court granted the motion with leave to amend by order dated Feb. 17, 2005. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Feb. 25, 2005, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 24, 2005. In a decision dated Sept. 29, 2006, the federal district court granted Mr. Paulson’s motion to dismiss with leave to replead but otherwise denied the motion. Plaintiffs have moved for class certification, according to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007. The suit is "Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Case No. 1:04-cv- 02236-KMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Kenneth M. Karas presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ira M. Press, Esq. Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 371-6600 Fax: (212) 751-2540 E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com - and - Richard J. Pocker, Esq. Dickerson, Dickerson, Consul & Pocker Rainbow Corporate Center 777 N. Rainbow Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89107 Phone: (702) 388-8600; - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Representing the defendants is: David H. Braff, Esq. Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: +1-212-558-4705 Fax: +1-212-558-3588 E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com GOLDMAN SACHS: NYSE Case Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws and state common law in connection with New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) floor specialist activities, are seeking for the certification of a class in the matter, which names The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. as a defendant. Beginning in October 2003, Goldman Sachs; Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P.; and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists, LLC were among numerous defendants named in purported class actions brought on behalf of investors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York with regards to NYSE floor specialist activities. The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement on behalf of purchasers and sellers of unspecified securities between October 17, 1998 and October 15, 2003. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 16, 2004. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part by a decision dated Dec. 13, 2005. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a class, according to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over NYSE's SuperDot -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. along with Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC and numerous other defendants continue to face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over alleged violations of the federal antitrust and securities laws, as well as common law, in connection with execution of transactions through the New York Stock Exchange’s SuperDot system. The complaint, brought in June 2007 on behalf of several investors, seeks, among other things, unspecified treble damages. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/-- is global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Certification Sought in Futures and Options Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of holders of short positions in 30-year U.S. Treasury futures and options on the morning of Oct. 31, 2001 are seeking class-action status for the matter. The suit, which names Goldman, Sachs & Co., as a defendant, alleges that the firm purchased 30-year bonds and futures prior to the Treasury’s refunding announcement that morning based on non-public information about that announcement, and that such purchases increased the costs of covering such short positions. The complaint also names as defendants the Washington, D.C.- based political consultant who allegedly was the source of the information, a former Goldman, Sachs & Co. economist who allegedly received the information, and another company and one of its employees who also allegedly received and traded on the information prior to its public announcement. The complaint alleges violations of the federal commodities and antitrust laws, as well as Illinois statutory and common law, and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages including treble damages under the antitrust laws. The district court dismissed the antitrust and Illinois state law claims but permitted the federal commodities law claims to proceed. On Dec. 20, 2006, plaintiff moved for class certification, according to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/-- is global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Nixing of Short Sale Antitrust Suit Appealed ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the matter, “In re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-02859-VM,” are appealing a dismissal of the case, which names The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; and Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P., as defendants. The three are among the numerous financial services firms that have been named as defendants in the purported class action, which was filed on April 12, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by customers who engaged in short-selling transactions in equity securities since April 12, 2000. The amended complaint generally alleges that the customers were charged fees in connection with the short sales but that the applicable securities were not necessarily borrowed to effect delivery, resulting in failed deliveries, and that the defendants conspired to set a minimum threshold borrowing rate for securities designated as hard to borrow. The complaint asserts a claim under the federal antitrust laws, as well as claims under the New York Business Law and common law, and seeks treble damages as well as injunctive relief. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was granted by a decision dated Dec. 20, 2007. On Jan. 18, 2008, plaintiffs appealed this decision, according to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007. The suit is “In re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-02859-VM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Entwistle & Cappucci LLP 280 Park Avenue, 26 Floor West New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 894-7200 Fax: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: http://www.entwistle-law.com Representing the defendants are: William Joseph Fenrich, Esq. Davis Polk & Wardwell 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212)-450-4000 Fax: (212)-450-3800 E-mail: william.fenrich@dpw.com HOLLAND AMERICA: Continues to Face Passenger's Lawsuit in Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- Holland America Line, a wholly owned subsidiary of Carnival Corp., continues to face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for allegedly defrauding passengers traveling on Alaska cruises through a series of deceptive actions. Plaintiff J.B. Miller, an Ohio resident who took an Alaska cruise on July 15, 2006, claims injuries as a result of the company's alleged illegal omissions of the nature of the financial relationships underlying the shore excursions it offers (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2006). The focus of the complaint is that the company did not disclose, either orally or in writing, that the third-party businesses that the company features and promotes, which conduct shore excursions for Holland America passengers in Alaska, have paid the company to be included in promotions. Such omissions allegedly directly contravene the mandate of Alaska Statute which governs "Required Disclosures in Promotions on Board Cruise Ships." Violations of the statute constitute unfair trade practices under Alaska's consumer protection statutes. In addition, Holland America allegedly failed to follow Alaska law with respect to disclosure of its kickbacks on shore excursions, it has also stolen from its passengers in the guise of "collecting" fines that the government has never imposed. In July 2006, Ohio resident J.B. Miller's flight to Seattle was delayed, causing him and his family to miss the sailing of a Holland America cruise to Alaska. According to the complaint, Mr. Miller and his family were instructed to fly to Juneau, Alaska, in order to meet the ship. Once aboard, Holland America charged the Millers $300 per person for what it characterized as a "Jones Act Penalty." According to Mr. Berman, while the government does have the ability to fine passengers under a similar act, the Passenger Vessels Service Act (PVSA), the government never imposed the fine on Holland America. "Holland America forced the family to come up with $1,200 under the guise of a federal fine, and we know that Holland America knew the government would never ask for the money in return, and the government did not do so here," Mr. Berman noted. "In our view this is an egregious fraud and we believe this may be a wide-spread practice, involving a large percentage of those fined." The named plaintiff filed the action on behalf of: -- a class of "Shore Excursion Kickback Class" consisting of all persons and entities who took Alaska cruises or "cruisetours" with Holland America who also purchased shore excursions or other services offered on promotional material distributed by Holland America or on promotions by the company; and -- and a class of "Jones Act Phony Penalty Class" consisting of all persons and entities who took Holland America cruises or "cruisetours" within six years of the date of this lawsuit, who were assessed purported "Jones Act Penalties" by Holland America when the U.S. government did not actually assess any such penalties. The plaintiff is requesting: * an order certifying the action to be maintained as a class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Mr. Miller and his counsel to represent the class; * statutory damages suffered by class members in the amount of $500 per shore excursion taken per class member and $500 per phony Jones Act or PVSA charge; * contract damages of $300 for each class member improperly charged for a JOnes Act or PVSA penalty when no such penalty was ever actually imposed; * a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent order providing for equitable and injunctive relief enjoining Holland America from omitting to disclose that the third-party businesses they promote for shore excursions pay Holland America money for that privilege; and * attorneys fees, costs of the suit, pre- and post- judgment interest. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1242 Carnival Corp. reported no development in the matter in its Jan. 29, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007. The suit is "Miller v. Holland America Line Inc., Case No. 2:06- cv-01363-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Robert S. Lasnik. Representing the plaintiffs are: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 5th Ave., Ste 2900 Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com jeniphr@hagens-berman.com INLAND WESTERN: Co-Lead Counsel Named in Ill. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois have appointed the law firms of: -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, and -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as Co-Lead Counsel and two institutional investors as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in a securities class action charging Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. (Inland REIT), certain of its directors, officers and affiliates, and William Blair & Company, L.L.C. with violations of Sections 14(a) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or state law claims. Inland REIT, a real estate investment trust whose stock is not traded on a national stock exchange, is focused on the acquisition, development and management of retail properties. As of September 30, 2007, Inland REIT's portfolio consisted of 305 properties totaling approximately 46.2 million square feet, located in 38 states. Since its inception in 2003, Inland REIT, through two public offerings and the issuance of shares through its distribution reinvestment program, raised net offering proceeds from investors of over $4.5 billion. The case was filed on Nov. 1, 2007 by a company stockholder. It attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of all persons who are entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 10, 2007, as amended or supplemented, and derivative claims on its behalf (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2007). The Complaint was filed on behalf of a proposed class of Inland REIT's shareholders who were entitled to vote on a Schedule 14A Proxy Statement that was filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2007. The Proxy sought shareholder approval of the merger of Inland REIT with its affiliated Advisor and Property Managers for $375 million worth of Inland REIT's stock (Internalization). The Complaint alleges that the Proxy, the Internalization and defendants' conduct misled Inland REIT's shareholders, violated federal securities laws and/or constituted breaches of fiduciary duty. Such allegations include: (a) the Proxy incorporated false and misleading financial statements of the Advisor and Property Managers; (b) defendants caused Inland REIT to pay millions in excessive and unjustified fees historically to their affiliates, the Advisor and Property Managers; (c) the values attributed to the Advisor and Property Managers in the Internalization were excessive and improperly inflated the amount of consideration paid in the Internalization; and (d) defendants, assisted by William Blair who served as a "financial advisor," included in the Proxy a flawed and misleading "opinion" that $375 million for the Internalization was fair to the shareholders. The suit is “City Of St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System, et al. v. Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-06174,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman. Representing the plaintiffs is: Chimicles & Tikellis LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: 888.805.7848 Fax: 610.649.3633 E-mail: mail@chimicles.com Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212.907.0700 Fax: 212.818.0477 E-mail: info@labaton.com - and - Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212.545.4600 Fax: 212.686.0114 E-mail: newyork@whafh.com JANSSEN-ORTHO INC: Faces Negligence Suit Over Evra in B.C. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Terrace, B.C. man filed a suit under the Class Proceedings Act on behalf of a purported class of people in the British Columbia who were prescribed Evra, a transdermal contraceptive patch. Edward Ansems brought the suit on behalf of his daughter Jennifer Ansems, who was born with Down Syndrome, and was prescribed Evra. Jennifer commenced using Evra on or about Oct. 8, 2006. She later suffered a deep vein thrombosis in her left leg. The suit was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on Dec. 18, 2007 against: -- Janssen-Ortho Inc., -- Johnson & Johnson Inc., -- Johnson & Johnson, -- Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC (fka R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute, and -- Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc. The suit states the risk of developing and/or dying from a blood clot is substantially higher among women who sue Evra compared to women who use traditional oral contraceptive pills. Although Evra and most oral contraceptives contain the same amount of estrogen, hormones from the Evra patch go directly into the bloodstream while oral contraceptives are digested first, reducing much of the estrogen that eventually enters the blood. The plaintiff claims that following Health Canada's approval of Evra in 2002, the defendants aggressively marketed it without properly disclosing the safety hazards associated with Evra. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, general damages, aggravated damages, punitive damages, special damages. For more information, contact: Poyner Baxter LLP #408-145 Chadwick Court North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 3K1 Phone: 604-988-6321 Fax: 604-988-3632 MISSISSIPPI: Court Approves Plan to Improve Foster Care Program --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court in Jackson approved a settlement of a class action seeking improvements in Mississippi's foster-care program, Biloxi Sun Herald reports. Class Action Reporter reported on Nov. 13 that the Mississippi Dept. of Human Services and attorneys representing children in the state's foster care submitted a plan to the court to correct deficiencies in the state's foster care system. The plan was made with the cooperation of the Children’s Rights out of New York, the Attorney General’s office, and the Office of the Governor. The plan includes: -- providing foster children with required medical and mental health screenings, assessments, and care; -- providing foster children with at least two in-person caseworker visits per month to monitor their safety and well-being; -- licensing all foster family homes, including kinship care homes; -- increasing foster care reimbursement rates to reflect the actual costs of caring for foster children; -- limiting caseloads to 14 cases per worker; -- appointing an independent court monitor to ensure the timely implementation of reforms. The ruling came in the suit “Olivia Y. v. Barbour.” The case was filed in March of 2004 on behalf of six plaintiffs -- children who had allegedly fallen victim to physical and psychological harm while in the custody of the Mississippi DFCS or had simply been neglected by DFCS altogether. These six plaintiffs were representative of the over 3,500 foster children dependent upon the care of DFCS, as well as thousands more who are improperly diverted from the system. In May of 2004, seven more children joined in the lawsuit through an amended complaint. The suit alleged that the substantive constitutional due process rights of over 3,500 Mississippi foster children in state custody had been violated through the State's repeated failures to provide essential medical care, protection against neglect and abuse, and minimally acceptable placement and adoption services. Rather than face trial, Mississippi agreed to a court-supervised process of reforming its child welfare system such to meet and exceed constitutional, federal, and national child protective standards. The suit was filed against the Governor of Mississippi, the Executive Director of the Department of Human Services, and the Director of DHS’s Division of Familyand Children’s Services, all in their official capacities. The suit is “Olivia Y. v. Barbour, 04-CV-251,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March 30, 2004. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marcia Lowry Eric Thompson Tara Crean Margaret Ross Children's Rights, Inc. 404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 683-2210 Fax: (212) 683-4015 E-mail: ethompson@childrenrights.org Wayne Drinkwater, Esq. Melody McAnally, Esq. Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP One Jackson Place, Suite 450 188 E. Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: (601) 948-8000 Fax: (601) 948-3000 E-mail: wdrinkwater@bradleyarant.com John Lang, Esq. Christian Carbone, Esq. Loeb & Loeb, LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10037 Phone: (212) 407-4000 Fax: (212) 407-4990 E-mail: jlang@loeb.com Stephen H. Leech, Esq. P.O. Box 3623 Jackson, MS 39207 Phone: (601) 355-4013 E-mail: s.leech@sleech.com NEW YORK: East Hampton Employees Oppose Health Insurance Switch --------------------------------------------------------------- Union employees in East Hampton filed a class-action grievance against the town to object a possible change in health insurance coverage, it emerged in a report by Susan J. Greenberg of Suffolk Life Newspapers reports. The East Hampton Town Board decided in the beginning of December to switch, as of January 1, from a self-insured employee health benefit plan to the New York State Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. The plan aims to provide taxpayers with almost $2 million in savings in 2008. The union summarily filed a grievance against the proposal at a December 11 board meeting. The change allegedly defies stipulations made in a recently negotiated contract, which specify that the current health insurance coverage will remain the same, said East Hampton Civil Service Employees Association President John Kremm, according to the report. Pending, the outcome of the grievance filing, a resolution passed by the town board at a Dec. 21 meeting will continue the current employee health insurance plan on a month-to-month basis, the report said. NUCEL LABS: Recalls Non-Sterile Eye Drops, Eye/Ear Wash ------------------------------------------------------- NuCel Labs of Idaho Falls, Idaho is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of all Eye Drops and Eye/Ear Wash. This recall follows an FDA inspection in which product testing indicated that there was bacteria and particulate matter in the product deeming these products non-sterile. Non-sterile eye drops pose an unacceptable risk of causing eye infections, which in rare cases could lead to blindness. Products are packaged in 1/4 oz plastic bottles. Eye drops are labeled: Eye Drops Caution: Do Not Use With Implants. Wash is labeled Eye/Ear Wash. All products labeled "Eye Drops Caution: Do Not Use With Implants" or "Eye/Ear Wash" are subject to the recall action. There are no lot numbers or expiration dates on the product. Approximately 500 units of these products have been distributed nationwide through retail outlets and the internet. No illnesses or injuries have been reported to date. The company has ceased the production and distribution of the product. Consumers who may have any of these products on hand are advised not to use them. Consumers are asked to return them to NuCel Lab, 1380 Curtis Ave, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 or discard them and send NuCel Lab a purchase receipt for a full refund. Consumers with questions may call NuCel Lab at 208-542- 0325. OHIO: Attorney General, Sheriffs Face Suit Over Sex Offender Law ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ohio Attorney General's Office, and Ohio's 88 county sheriffs face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which challenges a law that increases the length of time convicted sex offenders must register with police, The Associated Press reports. The Office of the Ohio Public Defender was among those who filed the federal lawsuit against the state attorney general's office, and several county sheriffs. That office along with several others are challenging the new law, which took effect on Jan. 1, 2008. That new law states that sexual offenders are to be classified under a three-tier system requiring longer registration times for felons and mandatory community notification for some offenders once considered low level. Ohio's Legislature passed the new law last year, in an effort to comply with a federal law named after Adam Walsh, a 6-year-old Florida boy abducted and killed in 1981,. The suit over the new law was brought on behalf of all individuals in the state whose sex offender classification status has been changed by the new law. It seeks a temporary court order preventing the new law from being enforced until those affected by it can have reclassification hearings and that the 60-day deadline for challenging reclassifications be suspended. It also wants to prevent community notification from being imposed on people retroactively. The suit is “Bell v. State of Ohio, Case No. 5:08-cv-00210-SL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge Sara Lioi presiding For more details, contact: The Office of the Ohio Public Defender 8 East Long Street - 11th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: (614) 466-5394 or (800) 686-1573 Web site: http://opd.ohio.gov/ RITE AID: S.C. Management Trainee Files Suit for Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corp., and Eckerd Corp. face a purported class action that was filed by a management trainee who claims that he was not paid proper overtime wages, The Associated Press reports. Edward L. Reece, III of South Carolina, said in the lawsuit that the firms had a policy to pay assistant managers half-time overtime for more than 45 hours a week. However, the lawsuit says that the company then stopped paying any overtime and that both policies violate federal law. The suit includes assistant managers who worked between 2004 and 2007. Mr. Reece, who is represented by Andrew Allen, Esq., also has sued Rite-Aid contending he was wrongly fired for questioning the overtime policy. Headquartered in Camp Hill, Pa., Rite Aid Corporation (NYSE: RAD) -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is a drugstore chain with more than 5,000 stores in 31 states and the District of Columbia. Rite Aid Corp., purchased the U.S. Eckerd and Brooks operations of Canada’s Jean Coutu Group Inc. for about $2.55 billion in cash and stock. Rite Aid and Eckerd merged last year. For more details, contact: Andrew C. Allen, Esq. Whatley Drake & Kallas 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Phone: (205) 328-9576 or 205-328-9576 Fax: 205-328-9669 E-mail: aallen@whatleydrake.com Web site: http://www.whatleydrake.com TJ PROMOTIONS: Recalls Coin Banks on Paint's High Lead Level ------------------------------------------------------------ TJ Promotions, of South El Monte, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,300 Fish Coin Banks. The company said the surface paint on the coin banks contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves coin banks made of plaster that are shaped as a fish. The coin banks are orange with white stripes. These recalled coin banks were manufactured in China and were provided as a free gift to Coastal Federal Credit Union members in North Carolina from February 2006 through September 2007. Picture of the recalled coin banks can be found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08158.jpg Consumers are advised to take the recalled coin bank away from children immediately and return it to where it was received for a free replacement as soon as one is available. For additional information, contact T J Promotions toll-free at (866) 742-2493 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.tjpromo.com UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: Cleared of Gender Equity Complaints ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas M. Rose of the U.S. District Court in Dayton, Ohio ruled that the University of Cincinnati did not violate gender- equity requirements in college sports when it eliminated its women’s crew, Chronicle of Higher Education reports. The university was accused in a 2002 suit that it failed to provide the women's team with sufficient equipment, training facilities, and coaches. The plaintiffs also said they had received less support than comparable men’s teams had. In 2006, Cincinnati announced that it would cut women’s crew and replace it with women’s lacrosse because of financial considerations. This month, Judge Rose ruled that Cincinnati had not violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, because the percentage of female athletes at the university was higher than the percentage of female undergraduates, according to the report. The university had also remedied claims of unequal facilities, the judge said. * Coughlin Stoia Adds Intellectual Property Litigation Group ------------------------------------------------------------ Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced the addition of a premier Intellectual Property Litigation Group. John C. Herman and Ryan K. Walsh will lead a team of IP litigators for Coughlin Stoia, focused on enforcing the rights of inventors, innovators and universities. Mssrs. Herman and Walsh join Coughlin Stoia from the Atlanta office of Duane Morris LLP after previously practicing at King & Spalding LLP. "Our clients include a number of the country's leading academic institutions, and they are asking for top-notch IP counsel. We are extremely pleased that some of the nation's most talented IP litigators have selected Coughlin Stoia as the law firm to help them grow their practice," said Darren Robbins of Coughlin Stoia. "Now, investors, innovators and academic institutions with sophisticated IP claims can turn to a firm with the ability and resources to stand toe-to-toe against the world's largest corporations." "Joining forces with the world's leading plaintiffs' firm allows us to leverage Coughlin Stoia's tremendous resources in building the leading plaintiffs' Intellectual Property Litigation Group. True innovation in this country comes primarily from small companies, universities and individuals who are too often overmatched by the resources of powerful corporations," Mr. Herman said. Citing a few examples of Coughlin Stoia's notable victories, Walsh pointed to the firm's securities class action against AT&T that recovered $100 million for investors after two weeks of trial, and the recently approved $600 million Cardinal Health securities class action recovery, the largest shareholder recovery ever in the Sixth Circuit. Coughlin Stoia is perhaps best known for recovering more than $7 billion for Enron shareholders, an effort that led renowned Professor John C. Coffee Jr. to state recently that Coughlin Stoia "...is the adversary most feared today by the defense bar...." "This unique fusion of legal powerhouses gives inventors, innovators and universities an ally with the ability and resources necessary to ensure that they are fairly compensated for their innovations," noted Herman. "Our clients have extraordinarily challenging and complex patent and copyright claims, and we are now uniquely positioned to provide them with the highest quality legal services available. We will continue to represent only those innovators with the strongest patents in the clearest cases of infringement." "Our firm's continuing success has been driven by our ability to provide our clients with the best litigation services in a variety of practice areas including securities, mergers and acquisitions, options backdating, individual opt-out actions, antitrust, consumer, and now intellectual property disputes," said Paul J. Geller, Managing Partner of Coughlin Stoia's Florida office. "The expansion of our southeastern presence through the opening of an Atlanta office enables us to be even more responsive to the needs of our growing roster of institutional clients, which now includes more public and multi- employer funds than any other plaintiffs' firm in the country." Mr. Herman's practice focuses on vindicating the rights of famous innovators. Noteworthy cases of his include representing renowned inventor Ed Phillips in the Phillips v. AWH Corp. case in which the Federal Circuit sat en banc in 2006; representing pioneers of mesh technology - David Petite, Edwin Brownrigg and IPCo - in a series of patent infringement cases; acting as plaintiffs' counsel in the In Re Home Depot shareholder derivative actions pending in Fulton County Superior Court; and representing the Georgia Tech Research Corporation in connection with its patent licensing, intellectual property portfolio and securities issues. Mr. Herman most recently served as Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group at Duane Morris and is recognized by his peers as being among the leading intellectual property litigators in the South East. He is regularly named as a Georgia Super Lawyer by Atlanta Magazine, and in 2007 he was named to the "Top 100" Georgia Super Lawyers list. Herman also has been named one of "Georgia's Most Effective Lawyers" by Legal Trend. He is a graduate of Vanderbilt University Law School. Mr. Walsh is a seasoned intellectual property litigator who has prosecuted numerous high-profile IP cases involving medical and telecommunications technologies. Georgia Super Lawyers has honored Walsh as a "Rising Star" in the field of Intellectual Property Litigation in each of the last three years. Walsh graduated magna cum laude from the University of Georgia School of Law, where he was a Bryant T. Castellow Scholar and a member of Order of the Coif. Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MYR Group Inc. Subject to Asbestos Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MYR Group Inc. is routinely subject to civil claims, litigation and arbitration (including asbestos-related), and regulatory investigations, according to the Company's Registration Statement filed on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 25, 2008. Some of these claims and litigations include claims related to the Company's current services and operations, and asbestos- related claims concerning historic operations of a predecessor affiliate. The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to these claims as well as adequate insurance coverage in the event any asbestos-related claim is not resolved in the Company's favor. COMPANY PROFILE: MYR Group Inc. 3 Continental Towers 1701 W. Golf Rd., Ste. 1012 Rolling Meadows, Ill. 60008-4270 United States Fiscal Year-End: December 2007 Sales: US$154.1 million (est.) 2007 Employees: 2,050 Description: MYR Group Inc. is a specialty contractor serving the electrical infrastructure market in the United States. The Company is a national contractor servicing the transmission and distribution sector of the United States electric utility industry. The Company also provides commercial and industrial electrical contracting services in the western United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Records 160 Claims at Nov. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- GenCorp Inc. recorded 160 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it as of Nov. 30, 2007, compared with 154 pending claims as of Nov. 30, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 25, 2008. As of Aug. 31, 2007, the Company faced 161 pending asbestos cases filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2007) For the year ended Nov. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 57 claims filed, 43 claims dismissed, and eight claims settled. Aggregate settlement costs amounted to US$72,000 and average settlement costs amounted to US$9,000. For the year ended Nov. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 62 claims filed, 55 claims dismissed, and five claims settled. Aggregate settlement costs amounted to US$67,000 and average settlement costs amounted to US$14,000. The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. Most of the cases have been filed in Madison County, Ill., and San Francisco. Since 1998, more than 200 of these asbestos lawsuits have been resolved with the majority being dismissed. Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued for such contingencies. Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases was US$900,000 for fiscal year 2007 and US$500,000 for fiscal year 2006. Based in Rancho Cordova, Calif., GenCorp Inc. is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense systems with a real estate segment that includes activities related to the entitlement, sale, and leasing of the Company's excess real estate assets. The Company's continuing operations are organized into two segments: Aerospace and Defense and Real Estate. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Cites $1.998B Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., in the three and 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007, recorded an asbestos-related liability of US$1.998 billion, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 24, 2008. For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded net paid losses and loss adjustment expenses amounting to US$111 million and net incurred losses and LAE amounting to US$24 million. For the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded net paid losses and LAE amounting to US$287 million and net incurred losses and LAE amounting to US$43 million. Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. offers personal and commercial life and property/casualty insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and workers' compensation. In business since 1810, the Company sells its products through about 11,000 independent agencies and more than 100,000 registered broker-dealers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Records $34M A&E Reserve at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Markel Corp.'s underwriting loss in 2007 included US$34 million of loss reserve development on asbestos and environmental exposures, compared with US$16.7 million in 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 24, 2008. The Other segment produced an underwriting loss of US$14.3 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 compared to an underwriting loss of US$23.4 million in 2006. The increase in A&E loss reserves in 2007 and 2006 was a result of the completion of the Company's annual review of these exposures during the third quarters of 2007 and 2006. During these reviews, the Company noted higher than expected settlements on existing claims, which caused the Company to increase its estimate of ultimate loss reserves for A&E exposures. The increase in loss reserves for A&E exposures during 2007 was partially offset by favorable development of loss reserves in other discontinued lines of business. Based in Glen Allen, Va., Markel Corp. markets and underwrites specialty insurance products and programs to a variety of niche markets. Subsidiaries include Essex Insurance Co. (excess and surplus lines), Shand Professional/Products Liability (excess and surplus, professional and products liability), Markel Insurance (specialty program insurance), and Markel Southwest Underwriters (excess and surplus, brokered). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals in Plastics Engineering Case Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, stayed appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin filed by Plastics Engineering Co. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., in an asbestos-related coverage action. The case is styled Plastics Engineering Co., Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Defendant- Appellant, Cross-Appellee. Circuit Judges Flaum, Manion, and Kanne entered judgment of Case Nos. 06-4397, 07-1041 on Jan. 22, 2008. Plastics Engineering began manufacturing molding compounds in 1934. Plastics Engineering had been named as defendant in hundreds of lawsuits for claims arising from individuals' exposure to the Company's asbestos-containing products, which the Company manufactured from 1950 until 1983. Liberty Mutual provided primary general liability insurance policies to Plastics Engineering beginning September 1957. Plastics Engineering began purchasing umbrella excess liability policies from Liberty Mutual in May 1970, and continued to purchase umbrella policies from Liberty Mutual at least until 2003. To date, Liberty Mutual has paid all of Plastics Engineering's defense costs, settlements, and judgments stemming from the asbestos lawsuits. In 2004, Liberty Mutual advised Plastics Engineering that it would only pay "its proportionate share of reasonable and necessary defense costs." However, Liberty Mutual has continued to pay all of Plastics Engineering's defense costs, settlements, and judgments under a reservation of rights. On Sept. 1, 2004, Plastics Engineering sued Liberty Mutual, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The parties stipulated to a joint statement of facts, which outlined the insurance policies at issue in the suit and detailed the particular policy language in dispute. Thereafter, both Plastics Engineering and Liberty Mutual filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On Oct. 2, 2006, the district court granted in part and denied in part each party's motion for summary judgment. On Dec. 6, 2006, the court entered a final declaratory judgment, to which both parties consented. Liberty Mutual appealed the first and third holdings of the district court's final declaratory judgment in a case that determined the defense and indemnity obligations of Liberty Mutual over asbestos lawsuits against Plastics Engineering. Plastics Engineering, in turn, appealed the second holding. The three challenged holdings presented important questions of Wisconsin law that are presently unresolved by Wisconsin appellate courts and are likely to recur in future lawsuits. Because current Wisconsin law does not provide sufficient guidance as to how the Wisconsin Supreme Court would resolve these issues, the Appeals Court stayed this appeal and certified three questions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Jeffrey O. Davis, Quarles & Brady, Milwaukee, represented Plastics Engineering Co. Michael J. Cohen, Meissner, Tierney, Fisher & Nichols, Milwaukee, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, Philadelphia, represented Liberty Mutual Insurance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace & Co. Settles 48 Claims for $60M ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. and other Debtors, as of Jan. 9, 2008, have entered into settlement agreements with 48 asbestos-related property damage claimants represented by Dies & Hile LLP in the aggregate amount of US$60 million, and eight PD claimants represented by Motley Rice LLC, in the aggregate amount of US$17.9 million. However, despite these settlements, numerous PD Claims remain unresolved, many of which were filed by Speights & Runyan. The Speights & Runyan Claims are currently being litigated before the Court. Various issues like statute of limitations are being contested by the Debtors. David T. Austern, the Court-appointed future claims representative, believes that a resolution of the remaining PD Claims would remove a potential objecting party; provide clarity with respect to a significant number of claims; and save the Court a significant amount of time that would otherwise be spent adjudicating the PD claims. To that end, the FCR has decided to take the necessary steps, including the retention of a settlement counsel, that would allow him to propose a settlement of the PD Claims. The FCR's counsel, Roger Frankel, at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, in Washington, D.C., says that the FCR has advised the Debtors and Speights & Runyan of his intent. Both parties have expressed willingness to cooperate, he says. Accordingly, the FCR seeks the Court's authority to retain Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP, as its special PD settlement counsel, nunc pro tunc to Jan. 4, 2008. As the FCR's settlement counsel, Hanly Conroy will: (a) Provide advise in the formulation and implementation of a settlement strategy for resolving PD Claims; (b) Assist the FCR with respect to the Debtors' ongoing PD Claims litigation; (c) Assist the FCR with respect to the plan of reorganization the FCR and the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants jointly filed as it relates to PD Claims; and (d) Assist the FCR with respect to the review and estimation of PD Claims. Hanly Conroy will be paid for its services according to its customary hourly rates of US$350 to US$700 per hour for attorneys and US$125 to US$200 for paraprofessionals. The firm will also be reimbursed for any necessary out-of-pocket expenses. Clinton Fisher, a member of the Hanly Conroy firm, assures the Court that his firm does not represent any interest adverse to the FCR, and is a "disinterested party" as the term is defined under Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 148; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Class Action Suit Claims CSI Toy Has Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Planet Toys Inc. and CBS Broadcasting Inc. are facing a class- action complaint filed in federal court claiming its "CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit-CSI Field Kit" toys contain Tremolite, a form of asbestos, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Jeffrey Morris says the fibers are contained in the white fingerprint powder and Planet Toys' claim that the toys are safe is false and deceptive. According to a statement found in their website, the Company responded the day after a Seattle Washington newspaper published a story regarding a Consumer Awareness Organization the "Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization" (ADAO) reporting their testing for asbestos and subsequent findings within selected products from several consumer products companies. Their random testing ranged from companies such as 3M Co., alleging asbestos content in some of their home improvement tape, to Planet Toys' CSI Fingerprint kits, which they further alleged, contained up to seven percent asbestos in some of the powders. The Company contacted Paradigm Testing Laboratories in Rochester, N.Y., per the suggestion of Bureau Veritas (BV), and conducted same day testing on 18 different samples of the fingerprint powder, all of which clearly stated, "No Asbestos detected." The Company then tested another 12 samples from the same lot that the ADAO tested-(Lot 100) claiming their findings of an asbestos content, here again Paradigm Labs confirmed "No Asbestos detected." New York-based Planet Toys Inc. is an international toy manufacturer specializing in the development of a wide variety of children's products. Categories span from preschool through radio control cars for the child and adult to enjoy. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.405B Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$1.405 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.262 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 24, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$1.146 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related recoveries was at US$1.086 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.1 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos- related liabilities amounted to US$1.111 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing firm, serving customers with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CertainTeed Drop to 74T at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CertainTeed Corp., a subsidiary of Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, recorded 74,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 76,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 24, 2008. CertainTeed recorded 75,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims at Sept. 30, 2007 and June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) Some 6,000 claims were filed against CertainTeed in 2007, versus 7,000 in 2006. Around 8,000 claims were resolved over the period. A total of US$73 million indemnity payments were paid over the last 12 months, compared with US$83 million over 2006. In light of these trends, an additional provision of EUR90 million was recorded in 2007 (compared with EUR95 million in 2006), increasing the total coverage for CertainTeed's asbestos- related claims to US$473 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$451 million at end-2006. Courbevoie, France-based Compagnie de Saint-Gobain is a glass producer that controls more than 1,000 companies in five sectors: Building Distribution, Construction, Flat Glass, Packaging, and High-Performance Materials. The Company makes 30 billion glass containers a year and provides insulation for 20 percent of all U.S. homes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee Names Examiner in Tersigni Inquiry ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Justice Department's Office of the U.S. Trustee has named Hugh M. Ray, a Partner with Andrews Kurth, as the Examiner to investigate the billing practices and related conduct of L. Tersigni Consulting, according to an Andrews Kurth press release dated Jan. 24, 2008. The U.S. Trustee's office in New Haven, Conn., filed notice of Mr. Ray's appointment in the case on Jan. 23, 2008. The notice is subject to approval by Judge Alan H.W. Schiff of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Bridgeport, Conn. L. Tersigni filed for bankruptcy protection in November and has outlined plans to liquidate its assets. Founded in 2001, the Stamford, Conn.-based company advised a number of asbestos creditors in major bankruptcy cases, including W. R. Grace & Co., Federal Mogul Corp. and USG Corp. Among the Company's unsecured creditors are more than a dozen other companies that filed for bankruptcy protection in order to manage their asbestos-related liabilities. According to court documents filed in the case, Judge Schiff has directed the inquiry to investigate "any fraud, dishonesty, incompetence or gross mismanagement of the affairs" of L. Tersigni by its management. The company's founder, Loreto Tersigni, died in May 2007. Employees of the firm had notified federal authorities of possible billing discrepancies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. County Worker Fired Over Asbestos Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Chick, the former Cayuga County, N.Y., worker who pleaded guilty to illegally removing asbestos from a county office building, was fired on Jan. 25, 2008, after a lengthy legal process, The Citizen reports. On the night of Jan. 25, 2008, Mr. Chick said that he could not discuss his case because he had not yet spoken to his attorney or seen any legal paperwork regarding his job status. Mr. Chick, a county carpenter who has been on paid suspension for most of the past year, pleaded guilty in January 2007 to illegally removing asbestos from the county Board of Elections building in February 2006. He has insisted he was simply following orders, and should be given a light sentence. However, federal prosecutors said Mr. Chick has been deceptive throughout their investigation and they likely will not be charging anyone else in connection with the case. Mr. Chick was U.S. District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. has set sentencing for 11 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008 in Syracuse, N.Y. Judge Scullin set the date following hearing dates in the fall in which attorneys made their cases for what the sentence should be. Those hearings included the testimony of then-Cayuga County Legislature Chairman George Fearon, who said he did not know about the illegal activity until months after it took place. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doctor Files GBP1M Suit v. Allen & Hanburys ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Ian Campbell, who was Queen Elizabeth's trusted doctor, filed a GBP1 million asbestos-related lawsuit against Allen & Hanburys, now owned by GlaxoSmithKline plc, Associated Northcliffe Digital reports. Dr. Campbell held the title of Apothecary to the Royal Household at Sandringham for 15 years before being forced to retire in 2007 after contracting mesothelioma. Dr. Campbell is now suing Allen & Hanburys because he claims his illness is the result of being exposed to asbestos while employed there. In a High Court writ, Dr. Campbell alleges that during his teens and early 20s at the Allen & Hanburys plant in Ware, Hertfordshire - where his adoptive father, Dr. Norman Campbell, was managing director - he repeatedly polished, screwed, shaped and drilled Ferobestos, a plastic which contained asbestos fibers. The writ alleges the Company failed to provide workers with suitable protection. A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline said, "We have the deepest sympathy for Dr. Campbell. A claim has been received by our insurers and is being progressed with all due diligence." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Sees Asbestos Payments of $55M in '08 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s management expects asbestos-related payments net of insurance will be about US$55 million in 2008, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 28, 2008. Management expects cash flow provided from operating activities before asbestos in 2008 will be about US$275 million, capital expenditures will be about US$50 million, and free cash flow will be US$170 million. For the full year 2007, the Company reported a net loss of US$62.3 million, or US$1.04 per share, which included a previously disclosed US$254 million after-tax provision, or US$4.22 per share, to extend its asbestos liability to 2017. Net income in 2006 was US$165.9 million, or US$2.67 per diluted share. Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane's Liability Drops to $943M at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability was at US$942,776,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$459,567,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 28, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos liability amounted to US$975 million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) The Company's current asbestos liability was at US$84 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$70 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's current asbestos liability amounted to US$80 million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was at US$306,557,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$170,400,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$319,249,000 as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was at US$33.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$52.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$32 million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, was at US$17,509,000 for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$10,606,000 for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006. Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, was at US$10,198,000 for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$40,563,000 for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company provided US$390,150,000 for asbestos-related matters for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007. Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Reserves $546M for Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was at US$546 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$577 million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 28, 2008. Under its non-current liabilities, the Company also recorded US$560 million as asbestos litigation reserve at Sept. 30, 2007 compared with US$585 million estimated at Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007) The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was at US$448 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$440 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company recorded US$458 million in asbestos insurance receivables at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$444 million recorded at Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007) Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc., a diversified, global chemical company, provides quality products, services and solutions to customers in more than 100 countries. The Company operates through four divisions: Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline, and Ashland Water Technologies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Records $15M Charge at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the 2007-4th quarter, Corning Inc. recorded an asbestos charge of US$15 million (pretax and after-tax) including a mark- to-market credit of US$17 million reflecting the decrease in Corning's common stock from Sept. 30, 2007 to Dec. 31, 2007 and a US$32 million charge to adjust the estimated settlement value of certain other components of the proposed asbestos settlement. On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against the Company and Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (PCC), which might arise from PCC products or operations. The proposed settlement, if approved, will require the Company to relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation, and contribute 25 million shares of Corning common stock. The Company also agreed to make cash payments with a value of US$131 million, in March 2003, over six years from the effective date of the settlement and to assign insurance policy proceeds from its primary insurance and a portion of its excess insurance at the time of the settlement. As a result of the proposed asbestos settlement, any changes in the estimated settlement value of the components of the proposed settlement agreement will be recognized in Corning's quarterly results until the date of the contribution to the settlement trust. Beginning with the 2003-1st quarter, the Company has recorded total net charges of US$1 billion to reflect the estimated settlement value of its asbestos liability. For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded an asbestos settlement credit of US$139 million. The Company recorded an asbestos settlement charge of US$185 million for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with an asbestos settlement credit of US$2 million in the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006. Corning Inc. deals with specialty glass and ceramics. The Company creates and makes keystone components that enable high- technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences. Products include glass substrates; ceramic substrates and filters; optical fiber, cable, hardware & equipment; optical biosensors; and other advanced optics and specialty glass solutions. The Company is based in Corning, N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Judge Upholds Ruling in SDG&E Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw, on Jan. 25, 2008, said he is sticking to his ruling ordering a new criminal trial for San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and two workers convicted of violating asbestos safety standards, SignOnSanDiego.com reports. Prosecutors had asked Judge Sabraw to reconsider his ruling in December 2007 ordering a new trial for SDG&E, David Williamson, an SDG&E environmental specialist, and Kyle Rheubottom, a contractor who worked for the company on a project to remove asbestos from a Lemon Grove, Calif., site in 2001. SDG&E was convicted in July 2007 of three counts of improperly removing asbestos and one count of making a false statement. The two workers were each convicted of one count of improperly disposing of asbestos. Assistant U.S. Attorney Melanie Pierson said she will decide within 20 days whether to appeal the ruling. A hearing was set for Feb. 22, 2008 to check on the status of the case. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brit Campaign Urges Govt to Overturn Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Hewitt, a 73-year-old former ship building worker and a sufferer of asbestos-related pleural plaques, has backed a campaign to win back compensation denied to thousands of workers, The Journal reports. Mr. Hewitt has lived with pleural plaques for four years and has the constant fear of developing mesothelioma as a result. He is calling on the British Government to bring in new legislation to overturn a House of Lords ruling that denies victims the right to compensation. The decision removed the right to compensation, a right that had existed for 20 years until insurance companies argued successfully to end the pay-outs and the Lords ruled on it in 2007. In almost every case the condition is caused by workers being exposed to asbestos due to negligence of their employers. Mr. Hewitt is backing Blaydon Labour MP Dave Anderson who was among those debating the issue in parliament. Fellow Blyth Valley and Wansbeck MPs Ronnie Campbell and Denis Murphy have signed a Commons motion that urges action on the issue of pleural plaques. They are urging secretary of state for justice Jack Straw to help reverse the decision. For 20 years, pleural plaques sufferers were able to claim compensation where it was proved their former employers were to blame for the exposure. The right to compensation was established in the High Court in 2005 but the insurance companies successfully appealed that decision and the Law Lords gave a final ruling in 2007. MPs also called for the Government to force the insurers to set up a fund to compensate the victims for asbestos disease whose claims fail because their employer no longer exists and an insurer cannot be traced. It is estimated that the House of Lords ruling will save insurance companies GBP1.4 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Death toll in English Town Reaches Its Peak ---------------------------------------------------------------- Northwich, a town in Cheshire, England, is reaching a peak in the number of people dying from asbestos-related mesothelioma, thisisCheshire.co.uk reports. Vale Royal has the third highest mortality rate in Cheshire, with 78 deaths from mesothelioma recorded between 1985 and 2004. Asbestos was readily used at engineering sites like ICI at Winnington. Between 1985 and 1989, five men died in the borough from the disease, but between 2000 and 2004, this figure had risen to 31, as trend experts expect to continue. Mesothelioma can take up to 60 years to develop and asbestos was widely used until the late 1970s, meaning many cases are yet to emerge. An inquest into the death of a former ICI employee from Rudheath revealed he developed mesothelioma because of exposure to asbestos in the 1950s and 1960s. The hearing at Crewe last Jan. 23, 2008 heard how 72-year-old Kenneth Hickson came into contact with asbestos while working as an electrical engineer at ICI's Fleetwood plant. Mr. Hickson would remove the asbestos to carry out his job, and it was then reapplied in his presence. Solicitor Janet Finney said, "The prognosis from being diagnosed is usually 12 months but Mr. Hickson didn't even live that long. It came as quite a shock because he was exposed so early on in his career." Ms. Finney, who works for national group Thompsons Solicitors, is now pursuing a claim against ICI and urges anyone affected by mesothelioma to seek legal advice. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Libby Claimants' Stay Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- As previously reported, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied the state of Montana's motion for reconsideration of the injunction denial decision and W.R. Grace & Co.'s motion to expand the injunction to include actions against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Co. The Bankruptcy Court also temporarily stayed all actions commenced against Montana and BNSF arising out of the alleged asbestos exposure caused by the Debtors in Libby, Mont. Certain claimants injured by exposure to asbestos in Grace's former Libby, Mont. Vermiculite Mine took an appeal of the Stay Order, and asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to vacate the Stay Order for these reasons: (a) The Stay Order constitutes a preliminary injunction entered in violation of Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (b) The Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin litigation between non-debtor parties not related to the Grace bankruptcy within the meaning of Section 1334(b) of the U.S. Judiciary and Judicial Procedures Code and 3rd Circuit precedent. (c) The Stay Order was entered without meeting the four-part test for issuance of an injunction and other requirements to stay third-party litigation in the context of a Chapter 11 case. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter concurs with the Libby Claimants that an order staying further litigation is "appropriate whenever the policy of preserving the court's power to decide the case effectively outweighs the risk of imposing an interim restraint before it has done so," citing In re Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 882 F.2d 806, 813-14(3d Cir. 1989). However, Judge Buckwalter opines that a temporary stay of indefinite duration has the potential to restrict the Libby Claimants to the point that it surpasses the interest in preserving the status quo. In light of the circumstances, Judge Buckwalter says he is disinclined to rule on the merits of the Libby Claimants' Appeal prior to giving the Bankruptcy Court sufficient time to consider the injunction motion and motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Judge Buckwalter dismisses the Libby Claimants' appeal to the Stay Order, without prejudice. If the Bankruptcy Court has not made a decision on the injunction motion and motion for reconsideration on or before April 15, 2008, the Libby Claimants may re-file their Appeal. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 149; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electric Fitter's Death Linked to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest, held at Loughborough Coroner's Court in England, heard that the death of fitter Michael Letts was linked to asbestos, Leicester Mercury reports. Mr. Letts was a fitter at an electric company and his exposure to asbestos, through his career spanning more than 30 years, caused him to develop mesothelioma. The inquest into the 59-year-old Mr. Letts' death was told the former Powergen worker died at his home in Short Hill, Wilson, on Aug. 5, 2007. Assistant deputy coroner Olivia Davison recorded that Mr. Letts had died from an industrial disease. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ark. County Courthouse Cleanup to Cost $50T ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to Safety and Environmental Investigations of Little Rock, Ark., it will cost the county US$50,000 to rid the 73- year-old courthouse of asbestos, Log Cabin Democrat reports. County Administrator Jeff Johnston said discussion on when repairs will begin and where the funds will come from will soon be discussed by the Budget and Finance Committee. In November 2007, the Quorum Court voted to increase the county general millage tax from 3.6 to 4.5 to finance repairs to the county courthouse's roof and plumbing and electrical systems. However, asbestos must be removed before repairs to the plumbing and electrical systems can begin. Though the roof has been patched, other repairs will depend on when the Budget and Finance Committee receives funds to cover repairs. Mr. Johnston said that the Quorum Court will not get any money from the millage increase until the last of 2008's property taxes are collected. Justice of the Peace Jimmy Bryant said repairs will start relatively soon. As far as covering costs, Mr. Bryant, who also serves on the Budget and Finance Committee, said he expects the county to shop around for loans to cover repair costs. Mr. Johnston said the bid process for asbestos removal will begin shortly after the county receives money from loans and County General to cover the repairs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Gov't. Expends EUR16M for Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ireland has spent nearly EUR160 million for removing asbestos from state buildings, including Leinster House, Independent.ie reports. Figures obtained by the Irish Independent show the nine-year project recorded its greatest expense of EUR42.5 million in 2007. However, a spokesman for the Office of Public Works (OPW) said most of the costs has gone on replacement rather than the removal and safe disposal of asbestos. The Irish government has cleared asbestos from over 4,000 schools in the past nine years, averaging 450 schools a year. Most schools had the substance in their ceiling tiles because of building practices in the 1970s. The OPW prioritizes removal in buildings which are undergoing renovation. The OPW spokesman said, "Sometimes, it's best if we leave it and 'manage' it. But if it's a danger we arrange to take it out by a specialist contractor. "Our number one priority is to remove it from areas where it is likely to be interfered with. Lagging on pipes is a very high priority for us now." The OPW also has to carry out a lot of work on schools which have the asbestos-laden ceiling tiles because new technology means wires are being put through the tiles. Drilling holes to take the wires turns the substance into the lethal dust form. Most of the OPW expense goes on refurbishment, such as re- roofing, and they are now "winding up" the program as the bulk of buildings have been dealt with. Although most of the OPW's work has been carried out in schools, they have also carried out works on other state buildings, including their own. In 2000, OPW removed asbestos from Leinster House when a new extension was being built. Meanwhile, it has emerged that the State has paid out EUR217,000 on asbestos claims from members of the public. And the State is owed EUR2.5 million from a series of failed asbestos-related claims by around 500 workers. Figures show EUR217,000 was paid out for two "genuine" claims which were resolved in 2006. A spokesman for the State Claims Agency (SCA) said they are continuing to work to recover the EUR2.5 million from people who took cases against the Office of Public Works. The workers claimed they had suffered psychological trauma due to fears they would suffer ill-health in the future following their exposure to asbestos. However, none had actually suffered any lung disease related to the deadly dust. The workers were originally awarded compensation ranging from EUR62,000 to EUR76,000 in the High Court. However, this award was successfully challenged by the State in the Supreme Court. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 80,899 Claims Pending v. Crane at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. recorded 80,899 asbestos-related claims filed against it as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 85,941 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 28, 2008. The Company recorded 81,251 asbestos-related claims filed against it as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 the Company recorded 3,417 new claims filed; 1,441 settlements; and 6,918 dismissals. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006 the Company recorded 4,853 new claims filed; 1,043 settlements; and 6,886 dismissals. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company was a defendant in cases filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. Of the 80,999 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2007, about 25,000 claims were pending in New York, about 24,000 claims were pending in Mississippi, about 9,000 claims were pending in Texas and about 4,000 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. Since the termination of the comprehensive master settlement agreement on Jan. 24, 2005, the Company has been resolving claims filed against it in the tort system. The Company has not re-engaged in discussions with representatives of current or future asbestos claimants with respect to such a comprehensive settlement. Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co.'s Appeal on Norris Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s appeal, on an adverse judgment of an asbestos- related case filed by Joseph Norris, is still pending, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 28, 2008. The Company tried the Joseph Norris asbestos claim to verdict in California and received an adverse jury verdict on Sept. 15, 2006. On Oct. 10, 2006 the court entered judgment on this verdict against the Company in the amount of US$2.15 million, together with interest thereon at the rate of 10 percent per annum until paid. In addition, the Company said it believes that procedural irregularities prevented an appropriate determination of the Company's alleged responsibility for plaintiffs' injuries. The Company’s post-trial motions were denied by order dated Dec. 15, 2006. On Jan. 3, 2007, the Company appealed the judgment. Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $87.5M for Settlement, Defense ---------------------------------------------------------------- The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance and tax effects) for Crane Co. totaled US$87.5 million in the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$69.1 million in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 28, 2008. Asbestos settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance and tax effects) for the Company totaled US$64.7 million in the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$49.5 million in the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) The Company's pre-tax cash payments for settlement and defense costs, including payments from insurers, in the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 totaled a US$10.2 million net payment (reflecting the receipt of US$31.5 million in previously escrowed funds from Equitas Ltd. in January 2007 and the receipt of US$10 million for a full policy buyout from Employers Reinsurance Co. in April 2007). The Company's pre-tax cash payments for settlement and defense costs, including payments from insurers, in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006 totaled a US$40.6 million net payment in 2006. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, settlement costs incurred totaled US$41.6 million and defense costs incurred totaled US$45.9 million. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, settlement costs incurred totaled US$26.3 million and defense costs incurred totaled US$42.8 million. Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records Asset of $340M at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co., as of Dec. 31, 2007, recorded an asbestos-related asset of US$340 million, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 28, 2008. Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company for a portion of its settlement and defense costs as incurred. To date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for such reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place," with eight of its excess insurer groups. With three of its excess insurer groups, the Company entered into policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreed sum, totaling US$46.8 million in aggregate. The Company is in discussions with or expects to enter into additional coverage-in-place agreements with other of its excess insurers whose policies are expected to respond to the aggregate costs included in the updated liability estimate. Under such coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies remain in force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for the Company's present and future asbestos claims on specified terms and conditions that address the share of asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms, claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer's obligations. Reimbursements from such insurers for past and ongoing settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies have been made as coverage-in-place and other agreements are reached with such insurers. All of these agreements include provisions for mutual releases, indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in-place, claims handling procedures. The Company determined its probable insurance reimbursement rate for the aggregate liability recorded as of Sept. 30, 2007 to be 33 percent. An asset of US$351 million was recorded as of Sept. 30, 2007 representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such claims. The asset is reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are received. Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $50.4M Assets, Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hercules Incorporated's net asbestos-related assets and liabilities were at US$50.4 million for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$37.1 million for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 29, 2008. The Company's net asbestos-related assets and liabilities amounted to US$46.8 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$9.5 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Incorporated manufactures and markets chemical specialties globally for making a variety of products for home, office and industrial markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.001B Liability at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities were at US$1.001 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.079 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 29, 2008. The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$1.061 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007) The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables were at US$696 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$725 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivable amounted to US$687 million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007) The Dow Chemical Company, which is based in Midland, Tex., is a company that produces plastics, chemicals, hydrocarbons, and agrochemicals. The Company also produces performance plastics. Other products include polyethylene resins for packaging, fibers, and films, as well as performance chemicals like acrylic acid. The Company makes more than 3,000 products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ormet Corp. 9019 Motion Affirmed on Jan. 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ormet Corporation states that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, approved the 9019 motion on Jan. 23, 2008, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 29, 2008. 690,000 Shares will be issued after 11 days with a reservation of shares for a group of 11 asbestos and hearing loss cases that did not enter into releases. The Company is awaiting approvals before releasing the shares that will be reserved. COMPANY PROFILE: Ormet Corporation 43840 State Rte. 7 Hannibal, Ohio United States http://www.ormet.com/ Description: Ormet Corporation is a major U.S. producer of aluminum. The Company employs about 1,000 people. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nuclear Plant Workers Show High Cancer Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- A study shows that workers, at the Savannah River Site, a South Carolina nuclear facility, suffered higher-than-average rates of certain cancers, including asbestos-related, American Journal of Industrial Medicine reports. The study looked at nearly 19,000 employees the Savannah River facility, which processed nuclear materials since the 1950s. Researchers found that while death rates from many causes were lower than national rates, workers had higher-than-expected rates of death from certain cancers. Among men, leukemia and cancer of the pleura, the tissue covering the lungs and lining the chest cavity, caused an abnormally high number of deaths, while female workers had elevated rates of kidney and skin cancers. Pleural cancer is strongly related to long-term exposure to asbestos. Some workers at the Savannah River Site were apparently overexposed to asbestos, based on "industrial hygiene" reports from the early 1970s, according to the researchers. Dr. David B. Richardson and colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, N.C., report the findings in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine. The study included 18,883 employees of the Savannah River Site who were hired before 1987 and worked there for at least three months. When the researchers looked at deaths from all causes and deaths from all cancers as a whole, the workers had rates that were below the U.S. norm. However, as mentioned, there was an excess of certain cancers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Urges Collinsville to Contain Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has asked the state attorney general's office to compel the city of Collinsville, Ill., to contain the asbestos-containing material left from the demolition of Beck's Lodge, bnd.com reports. The IEPA said the city improperly razed the vacant, 40-room motel on Jan. 14, 2008. The agency said the city did not appropriately remove more than 10,000 square feet of asbestos that had initially sprayed on the 45-year-old building's ceilings. The IEPA's asbestos inspector is in contact with the city to discuss a plan. The IEPA wants the city to maintain a fence around the perimeter of the property and continue putting water on the remaining material until it is transported to a landfill. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Plumber Gets Payout From U.K. University ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest has heard that Ernest Hitchin, a retired plumber suffering from mesothelioma won his legal battle for compensation against the University of Nottingham, in Nottingham, England, shortly before dying, Evening Post reports. The Evening Post reported how the 87-year-old Mr. Hitchin launched a bid for up to GBP100,000 in compensation against his former employers. Now it has been confirmed that Mr. Hitchen won his damages, shortly before his death on Jan. 10, 2008. It is not known how much the university eventually paid out. In the High Court writ, Mr. Hitchin said he was often exposed to large amounts of asbestos dust and fiber while inspecting and maintaining pipework lagged with asbestos between 1975 and 1985. Mr. Hitchin worked at the main campus in Lenton as well as at the Sutton Bonnington campus and the student accommodation in Beeston and Lenton. He also worked on welding in the plumbers' workshop. Mr. Hitchin alleged the university negligently failed to warn him of the risks, exposed him to a risk of injury and failed to give him protective equipment. He began to become short of breath in 2004 and was hospitalized several times. Notts coroner Dr. Nigel Chapman recorded a verdict of industrial disease. A University of Nottingham spokesman confirmed the case had been settled by the organization's insurers. He said, "We extend our condolences to Mr. Hitchin's family." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Africans Still Suffer from Asbestos Illness ---------------------------------------------------------------- Despite shutting down asbestos mines in the mid-1980s, dozens of South Africans still die of asbestos-related diseases every year, Cape Argus reports. The most recent victims, a 19-year-old and a 60-year-old man from Kuruman in the Northern Cape, died from secondary pollution from asbestos. The deaths came in the wake of a 2005-2006 government study on the extent of pollution at former mining sites. The objective of the study was to highlight the potential extent of secondary pollution. The two deaths came after the announcement of the government's intention to introduce new legislation to prohibit the use, manufacture, import and export of asbestos and any materials containing asbestos. Dr. Shahieda Adams, a medical specialist in occupational and environmental health, said although the government was trying to prohibit the use and manufacture of asbestos, the fiber had a long latency period and problems could manifest only years after people were exposed to it. Dr. Adams said that in some cases it could take up to 30 years for the disease to manifest. She added, "That's why we still see people dying today. We are actually hitting the asbestos epidemic now. And, on top of that, people in the Northern Cape are still exposed to secondary pollution from asbestos as a result of the fiber being used in their homes and buildings and to insulate structures in that area." Dr. Adams said although Capetonians were seldom infected with the deadly lung disease, there had been asbestos-related cases, especially among those in the asbestos cement, manufacturing and construction industries. Dr. Adams welcomed the government's move to ban materials manufactured from asbestos, but said the country would still see a lot of asbestos-related cases over the next 10 to 20 years. Meanwhile, the Asbestos Relief Trust, with its head office in Johannesburg, has been assisting victims of asbestos-related diseases since 2003. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Cites $29M Provision at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc., recorded a charge in the 2007-4th quarter of US$29 million (US$29 million, net of tax, or US$0.18 per diluted share) to increase its asbestos litigation reserve, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 30, 2008. The Company estimates that its asbestos liability for pending and future asbestos claims will range between US$201 million and US$243 million. At Dec. 31, 2006, the reported range was US$198 million to US$247 million. After the US$29 million charge, the Company's recorded liability at Dec. 31, 2007 was US$201 million compared with US$198 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Asbestos-related payments totaled US$26 million in 2007, including US$9 million under existing settlement agreements, consistent with 2006 payments of US$26 million, which also included US$9 million under existing settlement agreements. Cases filed against the Company declined to 3,600 in 2007 compared to 4,800 in 2006. In the three and nine months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$10 million for asbestos-related matters. Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, supplies packaging products to consumer marketing companies around the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Assembly Member Settles Libel Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Burns, an assembly member of Northern Ireland's Social Democratic and Labour Party, issued a High Court apology after being sued over allegations made about an asbestos plant planning application, BBC News reports. Mr. Burns agreed to pay undisclosed damages and costs as part of the libel settlement, which was reached out of court with contractor Eastwood Ltd., a Carryduff, Northern Ireland-based firm specializing in asbestos removal. A court statement said Mr. Burns accepted he was wrong to claim that Eastwood was "in cahoots with the planners or in bed with the Planning Service." Eastwood took legal action over statements Mr. Burns made about its application to establish an asbestos transfer station at Crosshill Quarry in Crumlin, County Antrim. In a letter sent to former Environment Minister Angela Smith in December 2004, Mr. Burns claimed to have evidence that Eastwood had crushed railway carriages at the quarry in May 2004. It was alleged there were sworn affidavits from witnesses who described the carriages being broken up. The apology read out by a QC for Eastwood said, "He now fully acknowledges that this evidence was entirely incorrect." The court heard that Mr. Burns also acknowledged that Eastwood had been open in attempting to communicate the facts about their application. Suzanne Eastwood, part owner of the Company, which has also received damages from newspapers as part of its legal action, said she was delighted with the outcome. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tremolite Discovered at 3 Tokyo Facilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tremolite, a form of asbestos thought never to have been used in Japan, was detected at three more Tokyo facilities, including a private nursery school, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports. Along with anthophyllite and actinolite, tremolite is one of three highly carcinogenic forms of asbestos that were thought to have been absent from Japan. The discovery raises the possibility that tremolite has been widely used in Japan as a building material. Early in January 2008, it was learned that surveys by municipal governments had found the three types at eight public facilities in Tokyo, Chiba and Niigata. When repairing or demolishing a building, it is a requirement to check whether the building contains asbestos. However, many inspection companies have excluded tremolite from the checks. The tremolite was detected on the ceiling of a boiler room at a private nursery school in December 2006, the ceiling of a pump room at a condominium in May 2007, and in the wall and beams of an office building in August 2007. In all three cases, the tremolite had been contained in spray-on wall coatings. Concentrations of tremolite in the sprays used hit 60 percent at the nursery, 20 percent at the condominium and 7 to 10 percent at the office building. In all three cases, the tremolite was found during inspections conducted before demolition or alteration work. If the inspections had not been done to the U.S. standard, it is likely that the tremolite would have remained undetected, with no prevention measures taken, as no other asbestos had been used at the facilities. The carcinogenicity of tremolite is said to be the same as blue asbestos, crocidolite -- the most carcinogenic of all asbestos. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Astech-Marmon Wins Right to Expand Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos abatement firm Astech-Marmon Inc. won the right to add additional charges and seek more damages in its federal lawsuit alleging it was shut at work because of corruption in Joseph P. Ganim's administration, Connecticut Post reports. Senior U.S. District Judge Alan H. Nevas permitted David Golub, the lawyer representing Astech-Marmon, to sue Alfred Lenoci Sr. and Jr., Michael Schinella and their United Properties groups for violating their constitutional rights to due process and bid rigging. Judge Nevas did give Christian Young and J. Robert Gulash, the lawyers for Alfred Lenoci Jr. and his companies, and Ira Grudberg, the lawyer for the elder Mr. Lenoci and his companies, additional time to question witnesses and file a motion for summary judgment. Judge Nevas set June 30, 2008 and July 31, 2008 for those deadlines. respectively. The ruling comes at a time when Mr. Young and Mr. Grudberg are among the lawyers preparing for trial in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit brought by the jilted developer of Steel Point against the city, the Lenocis and the Ganim administration. That trial, which will involve Alex Conroy's claims that former Bridgeport Mayor Joseph P. Ganim conspired to stonewall his project in order to get it into the hands of the Lenocis, will start March 4, 2008 before Superior Court Judge Barry Stevens and a six member jury in Waterbury. It is expected to last through April 2008. On Jan. 25, 2008, Mr. Stevens, a former federal prosecutor, ruled that Mr. Conroy would not be allowed to present evidence on his claim of US$100 million in lost profits because his project was never developed. The Astech-Marmon suit is not expected to move forward until 2009 at the earliest. The suit, which also claims violations of the civil racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act, alleges that Mr. Ganim illegally authorized emergency no-bid orders to demolish blighted homes. The contracts were given to the younger Mr. Lenoci's United Environmental Redevelopment Co., which in turn hired Scott Arena, the general manager of ChemScope Inc., a Wallingford- based asbestos surveying company, and Brian Bannon, an official with Asbestos Abatement and Insulation Services of West Haven, an asbestos removal firm. During Mr. Ganim's corruption probe and resulting trial, Mr. Arena admitted inflating the amount of asbestos in each building and then billing the city US$191,750, which prosecutors say was US$100,000 more than the going rate. Mr. Bannon then took these inflated reports and charged the city US$817,586 to remove asbestos. The Astech-Marmon suit alleges that Mr. Bannon and ChemScope kicked back US$320,000 to the Lenocis and Mr. Schinella, who in turn paid Paul Pinto, Mr. Ganim's admitted bagman, US$160,000. That money was split between Mr. Pinto and Mr. Ganim with US$10,000 going to Patrick Coyne, Mr. Ganim's director of mayoral initiatives, who signed off on the United Environmental Redevelopment contracts. All of these people were convicted of federal charges, but only Mr. Ganim is still serving prison time. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scapa & Wallace Told to Pay $1.72M Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scapa Group PLC states that a jury in a January 2008 trial at the U.S. Circuit Court for Baltimore, Md., has asked Scapa Dryers Inc. and its co-defendant, the Wallace & Gale Settlement Trust, to pay damages amounting to total US$1.72 million in an asbestos exposure case, Thomson Financial News reports. The supplier of technical adhesive tapes said it is examining the verdict and expects to appeal, adding its insurance cover remains intact. On Nov. 29, 2007, Scapa said it continues to be involved in a number of cases in the U.S. arising from the alleged exposure of papermill workers to asbestos in a product which was manufactured by a business sold to J M Voith AG in 1999. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records $1.7B Contingency at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co.'s asbestos-related contingencies were at US$1.7 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 30, 2008. The Company's asbestos-related insurance was at US$500 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its U.S. subsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary W.R. Grace & Co.–Conn., filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order to resolve the Company's asbestos-related liabilities. As part of determining the confirmability of a plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court has approved a process and timeline for determining the cost to resolve asbestos-related property damage and personal injury claims. The trial to determine the Bankruptcy Court's estimate of the Company's pending and future asbestos personal injury liability began in January 2008 and is currently scheduled for about 20 trial days ending in mid-May. Expenses related to the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings, net of filing-entity interest income, were US$23.7 million in the 2007- 4th quarter, compared with US$17.7 million in the prior year quarter, and US$86.4 million for full year 2007 compared with US$49.9 million in the prior year, reflecting a higher level of activity in the bankruptcy proceeding related to claims adjudication and estimation. Most of the Company's noncore liabilities and contingencies (including asbestos-related litigation, environmental claims and other obligations) are subject to compromise under the Chapter 11 process. The Chapter 11 proceedings, including related litigation and the claims valuation process, could result in allowable claims that differ materially from recorded amounts. Based in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp. Liability Still at $512.5M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation's current asbestos settlement liability was at US$512.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 30, 2008. The effect of assumed issuance of asbestos settlement shares was at US$18 million in the quarter and year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the same as for the periods ended Dec. 31, 2006. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical, and consumer applications. Operating in 51 countries, the Company's international reach generated revenue of US$4.7 billion in 2007. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO OKs Moving Limitation Period to July ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASARCO LLC and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors agree to further toll and extend, through and including July 1, 2008, all limitations period that bar the Asbestos Debtors from asserting or commencing any claim or action under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code against ASARCO. The Asbestos Committee asks the Bankruptcy Court to approve its current tolling agreement with ASARCO LLC. The parties previously agreed to extend the limitations period for commencing Chapter 5 causes of actions to Feb. 1, 2008. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 64; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants File Appeal to Dana's Third Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ad Hoc Committee of Personal Injury Asbestos Claimants and Jose Angel Valdez submitted issues for appeal from Judge Burton Lifland's order confirming Dana Corporation's Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. The Asbestos Claimants want the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to find whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in confirming the Plan: (1) Notwithstanding the fact that the Plan impaired Class 3 Claims -- asbestos personal injury claims -- yet denied Asbestos PI Claimants the ability to vote to accept or reject the Plan? (2) When the Debtors did not meet their burden to demonstrate that the rights of Class 3 Claimholders were not altered? (3) When Class 3 Claimholders were not allowed to vote to accept or reject the Plan although the Plan did not leave the legal, equitable, and contractual rights of Class 3 Claimholders unaltered? (4) When the Plan creates a two-entity structure and channels asbestos claims to the lesser-funded entity without the safeguards mandated by Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code? (5) When the Plan channels asbestos claims to a non-operating entity? (6) When the Plan effectively channels future asbestos claims without the appointment of a future claims representative as mandated by Section 524(g)? (7) When the Plan denied the Class 3 Claimholders access to the Debtors' assets to satisfy their claims to which the Class 3 Claimholders previously had access? (8) Was in the best interests of creditors when the Plan denied Class 3 Claimholders access to the Debtors' assets to satisfy their claims, which would have been available to satisfy Class 3 Claims in a liquidation under Chapter 7? (9) When the Plan provides Class 3 Claimholders with a thing of value that has less value than they would have received under Chapter 7? (10) When the Plan allows the Debtors to denude certain reorganized Debtors of assets that otherwise would be available to pay Class 3 Claims? (11) When the Plan exculpates the Reorganized Debtors from any liability for transactions that impair or impede Class 3 Claims? (12) When the Plan denies the asbestos claimants their existing rights under Section 548 and state law to challenge corporate Restructuring Transactions? (13) When the Plan works as a court-approved fraudulent transfer by placing the Debtors' significant estate assets beyond the reach of asbestos claimant? (14) When the Plan strips the entity to which asbestos claimants must look for payment of signification assets? (15) When some Class 3 asbestos claimants receive more favorable or different treatment under a secret settlement? (16) When the Plan improperly places liquidated and unliquidated asbestos PI claims in the same class when those claims are not substantially similar? (17) When the Plan does not provide all of the Class 3 Claims with the same treatment? (18) When the Debtors provided no business reason or other justification for classifying asbestos PI claims separately from other general unsecured claims under the Plan? (19) When the Debtors provided no business reason or other justification for classifying asbestos PI claims separately from other tort claims under the Plan? (20) When the Plan effectively channels asbestos claims to an entity without the protections of Section 524(g)? (21) When the Plan provides the Debtors with some of the protections afforded by Section 524(c) without meeting all of the requirements specified in Section 524(g)? (22) When the Plan deprives holders of Class 3 Claims of protections afforded by the Bankruptcy Code? (23) When the Plan does not comply with the provisions of Section 1129(a)(1)? (24) When the Plan was not proposed in good faith as required by Section 1129(a)(3)? (25) When the Plan does not comply with the requirements of Section 1129(a)(7)? (26) When the Debtors did not demonstrate that the Plan is feasible under Section 1129 (a)(11)? (27) When the Plan likely will lead to the liquidation or further reorganization of some of the Debtors? (28) When the Plan violates the absolute priority rule provided in Section 1129(v)(2)(B)? (Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 69; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor, Inc. Liabilities Drop to $40M ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were at US$40 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$44 million at Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2008. The Company's current asbestos-related recoveries were at US$8 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2007. The Company's long-term asbestos-related recoveries were at US$32 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2007. Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a global supplier of integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Corp. Has $43M Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, recorded asbestos-related reserves of US$43 million as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2008. Maremont's corresponding asbestos-related recoveries were at US$28 million as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2007. Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries Inc. acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product. Maremont had about 27,912 pending asbestos-related claims at Sept. 30, 2007. There was no significant change in pending asbestos-related claims during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007. Bates White LLC provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next three to four years of US$28 million to US$38 million. After consultation with Bates White, Maremont determined that as of Sept. 30, 2007 the most likely and probable liability for pending and future claims over the next four years is US$37 million. Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a global supplier of integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Legacy Receivable Remains at $12M ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc. still records US$12 million, at Dec. 31, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2007, as insurance receivable related to Rockwell Automation Inc. asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2008. The Company, along with many other companies, was named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor Automotive Inc. from Rockwell in 1997. There are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name the Company, together with many other companies, as defendants. A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past experience has shown that most of the claimants will never identify any of Rockwell's products. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants. Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a global supplier of integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation continues to face certain lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in its products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2008. The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits. The claims are similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named the Company as a defendant. Those previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by the Company for amounts below expected defense costs. Neither the outcome of these lawsuits nor the potential for liability can be determined at this time. Batavia, N.Y.-based Graham Corporation is a designer, manufacturer and worldwide supplier of ejectors, liquid ring pumps, condensers and heat exchangers. Principal markets for the Company's equipment are the petrochemical, oil refinery and electric power generation industries, including cogeneration and geothermal plants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sherman, Alexander Cases Remanded in Nov. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, remanded asbestos- related actions filed by Moses Sherman, Leola Sherman, and John Alexander to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case is styled Moses Sherman and Leola Sherman, Plaintiffs, v. A.J. Pegno Construction Corp., et al., Defendants. The other case is styled John Alexander, Plaintiff, v. Amchem Products Inc., et al., Defendants. U.S. District Judge Richard S. Sullivan entered judgment of Case Nos. 07 Civ. 6433(RJS), 07 Civ. 6441(RJS) on Nov. 30, 2007. On Nov. 6, 2006, the Shermans commenced an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. On Nov. 21, 2006, Mr. Alexander commenced a separate action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. In the Actions, plaintiffs sought damages on the basis of personal injuries allegedly arising from Mr. Sherman's and Mr. Alexander's exposure to asbestos-containing materials. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each action containing a single allegation as against all of the defendants. On July 26, 2007, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. removed the Actions to federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction on the basis of the complete diversity of the parties. In the petitions, defendants asserted that diversity jurisdiction over the Actions is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that one non-diverse defendant, Union Carbide Corp., was named in the amended complaints filed in the Actions in New York State court. Specifically, defendants asserted that Union Carbide was fraudulently joined in the Actions solely for the purpose of destroying diversity of the parties, and, thus, its presence in the Actions does not defeat removal. On July 31, 2007, Mr. Alexander submitted a motion to remand the Alexander Action to state court. On Aug. 1, 2007, Sherman submitted a motion to remand the Sherman Action to state court. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a conditional order transferring the Actions to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs had submitted a joint opposition to the Panel's conditional transfer order, which is currently pending before the Panel. The respective motions to remand the Sherman Action and the Alexander Action were granted. Stephen Jeffrey Riegel, Weitz and Luxenburg P.C., New York, represented Moses Sherman, Leola Sherman, and John Alexander. Jay Allen Rappaport, Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch LLP, New York, represented Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. New Securities Fraud Cases SHORETEL INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of ShoreTel, Inc.,(NASDAQ:SHOR) in connection with the Company’s initial product offering (IPO) on or about July 3, 2007 until present. The suit alleges defendants failed to conduct an adequate due diligence investigation into the company prior to the IPO and failed to reveal that the company was not operating according to plan or as reported in registration statements sent to the SEC. Shareholders paid over $6 million in combined fees to compensate the underwriters for conducting such an investigation which is a critical component that provides investors with important safeguards and protections. The suit alleges had the investigation been appropriately carried out misleading information would not have been given to investors and shares would not have been sold at artificially inflated prices. ShoreTel’s IPO raised gross proceeds of at least $86 million with more than 9 million shares of common stock made available. On January 7, 2008 ShoreTel announced results for the second quarter of fiscal 2008 that were well below expected. Investors learned that fourth quarter results from 2007 would post revenues almost 20 percent lower than previous estimates. Additionally information regarding the Company’s inadequate internal controls, as stated in an IPO registration statement, became obvious to investors Â– information that should have come out in the company investigation. According to the complaint ShoreTel was already evidencing a deterioration across its product line at the IPO and in an effort to mask these problems defendants prematurely recognized revenues by pulling sales forward into earlier periods and by stuffing its distribution channel with excess products and inventory. As a result of these findings ShoreTel stock fell over 50 percent in one trading day. Shares plummeted from more than $13.00 per share prior to trading day, to a close of $6.02 per share on January 7, 2008. ShoreTel also experienced exceptionally heavy trading volume with more than six million shares traded Â– more than 30 times the CompanyÂ’ s recent average daily trading volume. The Complaint alleges that the defendants including ShoreTel, its entire board of directors, its chief financial officer and the underwriters involved in the IPO are each charged with violating sections of the Securities Act of 1933. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from January 16, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. Reed Kathrein Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: 510-725-3000 E-mail: info@hbsslaw.com Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com UBS AG: Curtis V. Trinko Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP has commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to recover damages on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of UBS AG between February 13, 2006 and December 11, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that UBS and certain of its officers and directors failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts which were known to, or were recklessly disregarded, including: (1) UBS-held debt securities were severely impacted; (2) that defendants ignored adverse facts disclosed to them by Dillon Read, a UBS hedge fund subsidiary; (3) defendants knew or should have known that additional securities being held were impaired; (4) defendants had reported artificially inflated earnings based on unsupportable assumptions regarding likely defaults and loan repurchase requirements; (5) defendants falsely forecasted future earnings, even though they knew that the deteriorating financial markets would inevitably lead to a significant write- down of the Company's impaired assets; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were materially false and misleading. Interested parties may move the court no later than February 11, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP New York Phone: 212-490-9550 E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.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 2008. 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 * * *