/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080606.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, June 6, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 112
Headlines
AGRIA CORP: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Set for June 10
APPLEBEE'S: Misrepresented Nutritional Content of Menu Items
ARTHROCARE CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
BLUE CROSS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Non-invasive Surgery Coverage
BLUE SQUARE: Unit Faces Suit Over HP Price-Fixing Conspiracy
CANADIAN ELECTROLYTIC: Quebec Court Nixes Sulphur Trioxide Suit
CORNELL COS: Discovery Begins in VCDC Strip Search Litigation
CORNELL COS: Still Faces Tex. Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger
DIBRE AUTO: N.J. Lawsuit Calls Nissan Dealer Predatory Lender
EARLY CHILDHOOD: Paint Brushes Violate Lead Paint Standard
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Deal in Info Theft Lawsuits Gear for Final OK
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Gives "Fresco" Suit Deal Interim Okay
HYDROX LABS: Recalls Contaminated Alcohol-Free Mouthwash
JAKKS PACIFIC: October 2008 Hearing Slated for N.Y. Litigation
JONES SODA: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
JUPITERIMAGES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Stay FACTA Suit Discovery
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Nov. 10 Hearing Set for N.J. Suit Deal
MASSACHUSETTS: Settlement Reached in Brain-Injured Patients Suit
MEDQUIST: Court Stays "Myers" to Allow Settlement Negotiations
MEDQUIST INC: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in New Jersey
MILLENNIUM PHARMA: Injunction Bid Against Takeda Buyout Denied
NAUTILUS INC: Faces Suit in Ohio Over Alleged FACTA Violations
TRAFIGURA: Africans Seek Damages Over Toxic Waste Via UK Court
TRILEGIANT CORP: July 18 Hearing Set for $25M Deal in "Pederson"
UNION PACIFIC: Railroad Victims Class Certified; Suit to Proceed
US AGRICULTURE DEPT: Sued by Farmers Over Racial Discrimination
US GOVERNMENT: FIAC Sues Over Delayed Citizenship Applications
WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Appeals Court Reverses "Cuesta" Certification
New Securities Fraud Cases
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in Illinois
NEXCEN BRANDS: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Brower Piven Files Wisconsin Securities Suit
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STERIS Corporation May Face Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.4MM Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navistar Liabilities Total $124M at Oct. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deere Still Subject to Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Precision Castparts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Cites 690 Stearns Cases at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Cites 2 Prager Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global's Falk Unit Still Has 130 Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 6,900 Lawsuits Pending v. Zurn at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits Still Pending v. Fairchild Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FutureFuel Chem. May Face Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Faces Cases in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records $182.3M March 31 Adjustments
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hickey Action Ongoing v. Sealed Air in N.J.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Patriot Risk Reserves $6.8 Mln for Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Still Involved in Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baymeadows Incurs $105,000 Cost for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Actions Still Ongoing v. DFH, Premix
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxford Incurs $807T for Cleanup at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 45 Lawsuits Pending v. Met-Pro at April 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Graham
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Inc. Objects to 13 Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Ministry Surveys Indirect Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links 86-Year-Old's Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Beach Season Starts Amid Contamination
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AAPEX, Owner Fined for CAA, CWA Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cinter to Pay $60,000 for Landfill Charges
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Local 480 Seeks Charges v. Canadian Gov't.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $250M Reimbursement for Mont. Cleanup OK'd
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vedanta Resources Subsidiary to Buy Asarco
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: O'Farrell Family Pursues High Court Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Loftis to Pay $37,500 for Disposal Breaches
*********
AGRIA CORP: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Set for June 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
June 10, 2008, is the deadline for investors of Agria
Corporation to apply for lead plaintiff appointment in
connection with a pending securities class action lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its officers.
The suit was commenced by Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman &
Gross LLP, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Agria
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities
pursuant or traceable to its November 6, 2007 Initial Public
Offering. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and
77o).
The complaint alleges that on November 6, 2007, Agria conducted
its IPO, filing a Registration Statement and Prospectus with the
SEC. The IPO was successful for the company and its selling
shareholder, raising over $282 million by selling the company's
securities to investors at $16.50 per share. On April 7, 2008,
Agria surprised the market when it announced that the company's
auditors were unable to begin their 2007 audit of Agria's
financials due to various accounting and payment issues. The
company also announced that its Chief Operating Officer had
resigned and disclosed for the first time that its CEO was
actively involved in protracted compensation negotiations with
the COO and other key executives. Consequently shares of the
company's securities declined $3.34 per share, or almost
38 percent, representing a cumulative loss of $11.04, or
66.9 percent, of the value of the company's shares since the
time of its IPO.
The complaint further alleges that, in connection with the
company's IPO, the defendants failed to disclose or indicate
that:
(1) the company had failed to secure enforceable
employment agreements with its COO and other key
executives prior to its IPO;
(2) the company was in negotiations with its COO and
other key executives to provide multi-million dollar
compensation packages and that these increased
compensation expenses would materially impact the
company's financial results going forward;
(3) various accounting and payment issues, which
existed at the time of the IPO, would subsequently
prohibit the company's auditors from completing its
audit of the company's financial statements;
(4) the company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(5) as a result of the foregoing, the company's
Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
relevant times.
Agria Corporation engages in the research and development,
production, and sale of upstream agricultural products in the
People's Republic of China.
For more information, contact:
Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017-5516
Phone: 888-476-6529
888-4-POMLAW
APPLEBEE'S: Misrepresented Nutritional Content of Menu Items
------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Paskett, through her counsel, Breskin Johnson & Townsend
PLLC and Premier Law Group PLLC, filed a class-action consumer
protection lawsuit on behalf of persons who ordered from the
Weight Watchers menu at Applebee's Neighborhood Bar & Grill
restaurants in the United States.
The complaint alleges that Applebee's engages in unfair and
deceptive business practices by misrepresenting the nutritional
information on its Weight Watchers menu. Applebee's customers
are encouraged to order menu items based upon an advertised
calorie, fat and fiber content for each item. The actual
nutritional information advertised by Applebee's is unreliable
and inaccurate. For example, the Tortilla Chicken Appetizer,
advertised as containing 13 grams of fat, was found to contain
21.4 grams of fat. The Garlic Herb Chicken was advertised to
contain 6 grams of fat, and was found to contain 18.
Health-conscious customers, including Anne Paskett, dined at
Applebee's because of the nutritional information provided on
Applebee's Weight Watchers menu.
When asked about the lawsuit, Ms. Paskett responded "It's not
fair for Applebee's to sell consumers dishes with inaccurate and
unreliable nutritional information. Applebee's is capitalizing
on consumers' desire to eat healthy, but not taking the steps
necessary to provide consumers with reliably healthy food."
Ms. Paskett's attorney, David Breskin, Esq., stated "Consumers
want and deserve truthful information in making choices about
the food they eat. We hope to bring redress to those customers
who were deceived in seeking healthier dining options, and to
ensure that restaurants offer truthful information about the
food that they serve."
For more information, contact:
Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC
999 Third Avenue Suite 4000
Seattle, Washington 98104-4009
Phone: 206-652-8660
Fax: 206-652-8290
Web site: http://www.bjtlegal.com/
ARTHROCARE CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArthroCare Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a purported
securities fraud class action lawsuit captioned, "Mcilvaine v.
Arthrocare Corporation et al., Case No. 9:08-cv-80343-KLR."
On April 4, 2008, John McIlvaine filed a lawsuit against the
company, Michael Baker, and Michael Gluk before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The
plaintiff filed the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
purchasers who purchased the company's stock between Aug. 4,
2006, and Jan. 23, 2008.
The lawsuit claims that the company's financial results were
materially overstated during this time period. The lawsuit
seeks money damages in an unspecified amount.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on April 7,
2008, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.
The suit is "Mcilvaine v. Arthrocare Corporation et al., Case
No. 9:08-cv-80343-KLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Paul Jeffrey Geller, Esq. (pgeller@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
120 E Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561-750-3000
Fax: 561-750-3364
Mark P. Kindall, Esq. (mkindall@snilaw.com)
Schatz Nobel Izard PC
20 Church Street, Suite 1700
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: 860-493-6292
Ryon M. McCabe, Esq. (rmccabe@mccaberabin.com)
McCabe Rabin, P.A.
525 South Flagler Drive, Suite 200
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: 561-659-7878
Fax: 561-659-7876
Representing the defendants is:
Lonnie Lloyd Simpson, Esq.
(lonnie.simpson@dlapiper.com)
DLA Piper US LLP
100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 2200
Tampa, FL 33602-5809
Phone: 813-229-2111
Fax: 813-229-1447
BLUE CROSS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Non-invasive Surgery Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross and Blue Shield are facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging they refuse to cover noninvasive surgery
for metastatic cancerous lung tumors by wrongfully defining the
procedure as "investigational" and not "medically necessary,"
though the Food and Drug Administratio has approved it,
CourtHouse News Service reports.
The procedure at issue -- radiofrequency ablation therapy --
involves burning cancerous lung tumors with a hot needle, in
patients for whom invasive surgery or chemotherapy are not
feasible options. The therapy involves burning small parts of
the tumor while the patient is under conscious sedation.
Patients often go home the same day, "usually with no pain or
soreness," the complaint states.
The plaintiffs say the FDA has approved the therapy "for the
ablation and coagulation of soft tissue" and it therefore is not
"investigational."
The plaintiffs also claim that counter to its
misrepresentations, Blue Cross has approved the therapy for
tumors small than 7 centimeters in diameter for some patients.
The plaintiffs request for judgment as follows:
-- an order directing all defendants to provide coverage
under the class policies for RFA of inoperable pulmonary
tumors of 7 cm. in diameter;
-- an award of attorneys' fees and costs;
-- such other relief as the court may order;
-- an order of restitution to members of the treated sub-
class for the costs of RFA of inoperable pulmonary
tumors of 7 cm. in diameter the Treated Sub-Class has
actually incurred;
-- an award of interest;
-- an award of attorneys' fees and costs;
-- such other relief as the court may order.
The suit is "James M. Cady et al. v. Anthem BlueCross Life and
Health Insurance Company et al., Case No CV 08 2753," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Edward J. Nevin, Esq. (ed.nevin@333law.com)
Nevin & Absolom
22 Battery Street, Suite 333
San Francisco, California 94111
Phone: 415-392-5040
Fax: 415-392-3729
BLUE SQUARE: Unit Faces Suit Over HP Price-Fixing Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Square-Israel Ltd. disclosed that on June 3, 2008, its
subsidiary, the Blue Square Chain (Hyper Hyper) Ltd., was served
with a claim and a request for approval as a class action, in
which Hyper is being sued together with other defendants,
regarding the marketing of ink cartridges.
The Claim alleges that the defendants coordinated the prices of
certain Hewlett-Packard ink cartridges sold by them, in a way
that constitutes allegedly an agreement in restraint of trade.
According to the claim, the defendants allegedly sell HP ink
cartridges for a higher price than the price charged for such
ink cartridges by smaller retailers.
The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated at ILS496 and if the
Claim is approved as a class action, the approximate claim
against all the defendants is estimated by the plaintiff at
ILS81 million (against all defendants). The Claim requests
relief in the form of declaration of an agreement in restraint
of trade, monetary compensation and a mandatory injunction to
stop alleged price coordination.
Hyper is currently reviewing the Claim and denying all above
allegations, however, at this preliminary stage of the
proceedings, it is unable to evaluate its likelihood of success
in the proceedings, including the likelihood that the Claim will
be certified as a class action.
Blue Square-Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-- is a leading
retailer in Israel. A pioneer of modern food retailing, in the
region. Blue Square currently operates 188 supermarkets under
different formats, each offering varying levels of services and
prices.
CANADIAN ELECTROLYTIC: Quebec Court Nixes Sulphur Trioxide Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noranda Income Fund confirmed that the Honorable Justice Helene
Poulin of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec has
dismissed the motion to institute a class action suit filed
against its manager, Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited,
following the release of sulphur trioxide (SO3) from the
refinery in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield on August 9, 2004.
The Superior Court's judgment confirms the position held by
CEZinc since the beginning, that the class action suit was
unfounded.
The class representative had sought authorization to file a
class action suit in the days following the incident, on behalf
of the individuals who were inconvenienced by the accidental
release of sulphur trioxide.
CEZinc management is satisfied with the judgment and hopes this
will put an end to the proceedings. The class representative has
30 days to appeal the decision.
Since 2004, CEZinc management has reviewed and improved its
communications protocol, and has invested $1.1 million to
improve the control systems at the acid plants and to increase
the number of electronic sulphur surveillance posts. In 2005,
CEZinc obtained ISO 14 001 certification for environmental
management.
The staff and management at CEZinc are committed to ethical
values by adhering to the strictest norms. CEZinc remains a
responsible corporate citizen, dedicated to protecting the
environment and respecting its laws. It works closely with
Environment Canada, Quebec's Ministere du Developpement durable,
de l'Environnement et des Parcs and is an involved partner in
sustainable development within the community.
Noranda Income Fund is an income trust whose units trade on the
Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "NIF.UN." The Noranda
Income Fund owns the CEZinc processing facility and ancillary
assets (the CEZinc processing facility) located in Salaberry-de-
Valleyfield, Quebec. The CEZinc processing facility is the
second-largest zinc processing facility in North America and the
largest zinc processing facility in eastern North America, where
the majority of its customers are located. It produces refined
zinc metal and various by-products from zinc concentrates
purchased from mining operations. The Processing Facility is
operated and managed by Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Xstrata Canada Corporation.
For more information, contact:
Michael Boone, Esq. (mboone@xstrata.ca)
Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited
Phone: 416-775-1561
Web site: http://www.norandaincomefund.com
- or -
Janick Tetreault-Moise (jtetreault@xstratazinc.ca)
Communication and Public Affairs
CEZinc
Phone: 450-373-9144, extension 2319
CORNELL COS: Discovery Begins in VCDC Strip Search Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a purported class action suit against
Cornell Companies, Inc., filed in the Federal District Court in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, by individuals stripped searched at the
Valencia County Detention Center.
Joe Torres and Eufrasio Armijo filed the suit on April 2007.
Each alleged that he was stripped searched at VCDC in violation
of his federal rights under the Fourth, Fourteenth and Eighth
amendments to the U.S. constitution.
The claimants also allege violation of their rights under state
law and seek to bring the case as a class action on behalf of
themselves and all detainees at VCDC during the applicable
statues of limitation.
The plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.
Valencia County is also a named defendant in the case and
operated the VCDC for a significantly greater portion of the
period covered by the lawsuit.
Discovery has commenced in the case, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.
Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles. The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies. Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.
CORNELL COS: Still Faces Tex. Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc., is still facing a purported class
action suit in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 269th
Judicial District (No. 2006-67413) that was filed by Ted
Kinbergy, a purported stockholder of the company.
Filed on Oct. 19, 2006, the complaint names as defendants the
company and each member of its board of directors as well as
Veritas Capital Fund III, L.P.
The company is a purported class action suit that alleges, among
other things, that:
-- the defendants have breached fiduciary duties they
assertedly owed to the company's stockholders in
connection with the company entering into the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated as of Oct. 6, 2006, with
Veritas, Cornell Holding Corp., and CCI Acquisition
Corp., and
-- the merger consideration is unfair and inadequate.
The plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction against
the consummation of the merger.
The proposed merger was rejected at a special meeting of the
company's stockholders held on Jan. 23, 2007.
The company reported no development in the matter in its May 12,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.
Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles. The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies. Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.
DIBRE AUTO: N.J. Lawsuit Calls Nissan Dealer Predatory Lender
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dibre Auto Group, LLC -- a/k/a North Plainfield Nissan -- is
facing a class-action complaint filed last month before the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County, accusing it of
being a predatory lender, CourtHouse News Service reports.
This consumer class action suit stems from the defendant's car
dealership's "Bankruptcy Discharge Program" -- a deceptive and
unconscionable direct marketing and sales scheme in which
defendant targeted and exploited the economic vulnerability of
individuals who had recently been through personal bankruptcies.
The complaint alleges that the Nissan dealer preyed upon
bankrupt people by identifying them through public records, then
sending them a "detachable $1,000 check" with deceptive come-
ons, telling them they had been "pre-approved" for a special
"Bankruptcy Discharge Program."
The named plaintiffs, a young couple, say North Plainfield
Nissan's Bankruptcy Discharge Program violated the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, that its targets had not been "pre-approved"
for loans, and that after being "lured" to the dealership by the
$1,000 "check," the people who had received bankruptcy discharge
papers were subjected to "a host of predatory practices that
were both contrary to the promises made in the advertisement and
in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act."
The plaintiffs claim the Nissan mailers "contained numerous
facial violations" of state laws, including "small-print
disclaimers that qualified, and were contrary to, the large-
print representations made in the advertisement."
The Feltynowskis claim that North Plainfield Nissan lured them
in with the phony "check," then sold them a new car for $34,160,
before taxes, and added $3,200 in options by insisting "the
markup was a necessary condition of their loan."
"To induce the purchase, the defendant falsely promised to
provide the Feltynowskis with refinancing to lower their
[$687.33] monthly payments in one year, and provided them with
some cash 'under the table' to help make the payments until
then," the complaint states. "After the one year period,
Defendant failed to provide the promised refinancing, leaving
the Feltynowskis with an unaffordable car payments [sic] and at
risk of default and repossession."
When Nissan sold them the car, Mrs. Feltynowski was making
$24,000 a year and her husband was on unemployment, the
complaint states.
The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:
(a) whether the defendant's "Bankruptcy Discharge Program"
advertisement contains one or more violations of the
Truth in Consumer Contract, Notice and Warranty Act,
NJSA 56:12-14, et seq.;
(b) whether the defendant's "Bankruptcy Discharge Program"
advertisement violates the Motor Vehicle Advertisement
regulations, NJAC 13:45A-26A.1, et seq. promulgated
pursuant to the CFA;
(c) whether the defendant's "Bankruptcy Discharge Program"
advertisement violates the General Advertisement
regulations, NJAC 13:45A-9.1, et seq. promulgated
pursuant to the CA;
(d) whether the defendant's "Bankruptcy Discharge Program"
advertisement contains misrepresentations, false
promises, omissions, unconscionable commercial conduct
or otherwise violates the Consumer Fraud Act,
NJSA 56:8-2;
(e) whether defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of
charging Bankruptcy Discharge Program customers more
for vehicles than it charged other customers;
(f) whether defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of
"steering" Bankruptcy Discharge Program customers away
from the "affordable vehicles" offered in the
advertisement and toward more expensive vehicles by
telling them that only certain vehicles were eligible
for the program;
(g) whether defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of
misrepresenting to Bankruptcy Discharge Program
customers credit that they were "already pre-approved"
for financing;
(h) whether defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of
denying credit to Bankruptcy Discharge Program
customers despite the representation in the
advertisement that they were "already pre-approved" for
financing;
(i) whether defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of
entering into sales or lease contracts with Bankruptcy
Discharge Program customers without regard to the
customers' ability to pay on the contract; and
(j) whether defendant performed any credit or financial
investigation or analyses prior to representing to
Bankruptcy Discharge Program advertisement recipients
that they were "pre-approved" for financing.
The plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:
-- for declaratory judgment that defendant violated the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJSA 56:8-1 et seq.); the
Motor Vehicle Advertisement Practices regulations (NJAC
13:45A-26A et seq.), and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract,
Warranty and Notice Act, (NJSA 56:12-14 et seq.);
-- for injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from future
violations of the CFA, Truth-in-Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act, and Motor Vehicle Advertisement Practices
Regulations as set forth in the complaint and requiring
defendant to comply with these statutes and all
applicable regulations;
-- for injunctive relief, pursuant to R. 4:32-1(b)(2),
requiring defendant to notify all class members of its
unlawful acts under the CFA and that they may pursue
redress individually for any ascertainable loss that
they suffered as a result of the unlawful acts;
-- for compensatory damages;
-- for treble damages pursuant to NJSA 56:8-19;
-- for maximum statutory damages pursuant to NJSA 56:12-17
and all other applicable statutes;
-- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit in
connection with this action pursuant to NJSA 56:8-19 and
NJSA 56:12-17;
-- for punitive damages;
-- for equitable relief allowing plaintiffs to rescind the
contract and requiring defendant to reimburse plaintiffs
for the full purchase price and all subsequent repair
costs;
-- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
-- for such other and further relief as the court deems
equitable and just.
The suit is "Jennifer A. Feltynowski et al. v. Dibre Auto Group,
LLC, Case No. SOM-L-774-08," filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Somerset County.
The plaintiffs' are represented by:
Galex Wolf, LLC
1520 U.S. Hwy 130 - Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Phone: 732-257-0550
Fax: 732-257-5654
EARLY CHILDHOOD: Paint Brushes Violate Lead Paint Standard
----------------------------------------------------------
Early Childhood Resources LLC, of Mt. Laurel, N.J., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 900 Yellow Sure Grip Paint Brushes.
The company said the surface paint on the handle of the yellow
paint brushes contains excessive levels of lead, violating the
federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported.
The paint brushes were sold in multi-color packages of four.
Only the yellow brushes are included in the recall. The paint
brushes have a rounded cylinder body with tan bristle tip
brushes and measure about 4 inches in height.
These recalled sure grip paint brushes were manufactured in
China and were being sold by Early Childhood Resource
distributors, including teacher supply stores nationwide from
May 2007 through December 2007 for about $4.
A picture of the recalled sure grip paint brushes is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08283.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
paint brushes and contact Early Childhood resources to receive a
free replacement product.
For additional information, contact Early Childhood Resources by
phone at 888-227-9028 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ecr4kids.com/
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Deal in Info Theft Lawsuits Gear for Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. -- a Georgia-based
corporation formerly known as Certegy, Inc. -- settled several
purported class action lawsuits over stolen consumer
information, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.
On July 3, 2007, the company reported that one of its database
administrators had misappropriated consumer information. To
date, it has seen no evidence of the stolen information being
used for anything other than marketing purposes.
Nevertheless, multiple putative class action complaints were
filed against the company, seeking monetary damages.
These class actions were settled in January 2008. The Court
preliminarily approved the settlement in March 2008.
Notice of the settlement will be mailed to class members within
the second quarter of 2008.
The company intends to seek final approval of the settlement
once the notice process is complete. This is expected to occur
in the third quarter of 2008.
Jacksonville, Fla.-based Fidelity National Information Services,
Inc. -- http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com/-- is a provider of
core processing services, card issuer and transaction processing
and mortgage-related services to financial institutions,
mortgage lenders and servicers.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Gives "Fresco" Suit Deal Interim Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of a class action
suit entitled, "Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions,
Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein," which named
eFunds Corp., an acquisition of Fidelity National Information
Services, Inc., as a defendant, according to Fidelity's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
The putative class action lawsuit was filed against eFunds,
which was acquired by Fidelity National in Sept. 12, 2007, and
seven other non-related parties.
The complaint alleged that eFunds purchased motor vehicle
records that were used for marketing and other purposes that are
not permitted under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.
The plaintiffs sought statutory damages, plus costs, attorney's
fees and injunctive relief.
eFunds and five of the other seven defendants settled the case
with the plaintiffs. That settlement was approved by the court
on a preliminary basis over objections of a group of Texas
drivers and motor vehicle record holders. The deal is awaiting
final court approval.
The objectors to the deal filed two class action complaints
styled, "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company et
al." and "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom et al." before the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging
similar violations of the DPPA.
The lawsuit is "Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions,
Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Judge Ted E. Bandstra, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. (ta@aronovitzlaw.com)
Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
150 W. Flagler Street
Suite 2700 Museum Tower
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: 305-372-2772
Fax: 375-0243
- and –
Lawrence Dean Goodman. Esq.
(lgoodman@devinegoodman.com)
Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-374-8200
Fax: 374-8208
HYDROX LABS: Recalls Contaminated Alcohol-Free Mouthwash
--------------------------------------------------------
Hydrox Labs, Elgin, IL has issued a voluntary recall of Cardinal
Health labeled alcohol-free mouthwash. As a result of this
recall, Cardinal Health is initiating a voluntary recall of the
same alcohol-free mouthwash. The Food and Drug Administration
has been apprised of the action. The mouthwash has been tested
and been found positive for Burkholderia cepacia (B. cepacia).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed
hospital illnesses in one state associated with the use of the
affected mouthwash.
Product was distributed to hospitals, medical centers, and long
term care facilities nationwide.
B. cepacia poses little medical risk to healthy people.
However, people who have certain health problems such as
weakened immune systems or chronic lung diseases, particularly
cystic fibrosis, may be more susceptible to infections with B.
cepacia. B. cepacia is a known cause of infections in
hospitalized patients. B. cepacia bacteria are often resistant
to common antibiotics. The effects of B. cepacia on people vary
widely, ranging from no symptoms at all, to serious respiratory
infections, especially in patients with CF.
Product lot number 26228 is affected. Affected product can be
identified by checking the lot code stamped on the Cardinal
Health label. The Lot number is located on the side of the
bottle.
The mouthwash may also be found in certain Personal Hygiene
Hospital Admission Kits. If you received mouthwash labeled for
Cardinal Health from your healthcare provider, please check to
see if the reorder number on the label matches the recalled
reorder numbers listed above, then check to see if the lot
number matches the recalled lot number.
Customers who have Cardinal Health labeled alcohol free
mouthwash which is being recalled should stop using the product
and contact Cardinal Health for instructions.
Cardinal Health is notifying their customers via overnight mail
and is arranging for all product to be returned for credit.
JAKKS PACIFIC: October 2008 Hearing Slated for N.Y. Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative October 2008 briefing schedule was established for
the purported class action, "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc.
Shareholders Class Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807,"
which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
In November 2004, several purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The suits are:
a. "Garcia v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action
No. 04-8807" (filed on Nov. 5, 2004);
b. "Jonco Investors, LLC v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al.,
Civil Action No. 04-9021" (filed on Nov. 16, 2004);
c. "Kahn v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
04-8910" (filed on Nov. 10, 2004);
d. "Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 04-8877" (filed on Nov. 9,
2004); and
e. "Irvine v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action
No. 04-9078" (filed on Nov. 16, 2004).
The class action complaints alleged that the company and certain
individual defendants issued positive statements concerning
increasing sales of the company's World Wrestling Entertainment
Inc. licensed products which were false and misleading because
the WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a pattern
of commercial bribery, its relationship with the WWE was being
negatively impacted by WWE's contentions, and there was an
increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or
nullification of the licensing agreements with the company.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the company misleadingly failed
to disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained
through an unlawful bribery scheme.
The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits were described as
purchasers of the company's common stock from as early as
Oct. 26, 1999, to as late as Oct. 19, 2004.
The class action complaints sought compensatory and other
damages in an undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by the
individual defendants.
On Jan. 25, 2005, the court consolidated the class action suits
under the caption, "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class
Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807."
A request by the defendants to dismiss the case was fully
briefed and arguments occurred on Nov. 30, 2006. The motion was
granted in January 2008 to the extent that the class action
claims were dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right
to seek leave to file an amended complaint based on statements
that the WWE licenses were obtained from the WWE as a result of
the long-term relationship with WWE.
The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint.
A briefing schedule has been established with respect to the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
motion is scheduled for argument in October 2008, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
The suit is "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action
Litigation, Case No. 04-8807," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Eric James Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP
100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-907-0790
Fax: 212-883-7579
- and -
Ken H. Chang, Esq. (kchang@wolfpopper.com)
Wolf, Popper, L.L.P.
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-451-9667
Fax: 212-486-2093
Representing the defendants are:
Michael H. Gruenglas, Esq. (mgruengl@skadden.com)
Skadden, Arps, Slate,Meagher & Flom, LLP
Four Times Square, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-735-3567
Fax: 917-777-3567
- and -
Jonathan Honig, Esq. (jhonig@fkiwsb.com)
Feder Kaszovitz Isaacson Weber Skala Bass & Rhine, LLP
750 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-986-1116
Fax: 212-888-5968
JONES SODA: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Soda Co. is facing a consolidated securities fraud class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
On Sept. 4, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company, its chief executive officer, and its chief
financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The case is entitled, "Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-1366-RSL," and purports to be brought on behalf
of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during
the period from March 9, 2007, to Aug. 2, 2007.
Six substantially similar complaints were subsequently filed in
the same court, some of which allege claims on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period
Nov. 1, 2006, to Aug. 2, 2007. Some of the subsequently filed
complaints also added as defendants certain directors and
another officer of the company.
The additional complaints generally allege violations of federal
securities laws based on, among other things, false and
misleading statements and omissions about the company's
financial results and business prospects. They seek unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.
On Oct. 26, 2007, all seven lawsuits were consolidated as a
single action entitled, "In re Jones Soda Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL." The Court appointed
Robert Burrell as lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities
case.
On May 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint, which purports to allege claims on
behalf of a class of purchasers of our common stock during the
period Jan. 10, 2007, to May 1, 2008, against the company and
Peter van Stolk, its former CEO, former Chairman of the Board,
and current director.
The suit is "In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation,
Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1301 5th Ave.
Ste. 2900
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-623-7292
David A.P. Brower, Esq. (brower@browerpiven.com)
Brower Piven
488 Madison Ave., 8th Fl.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-501-9000
- and -
Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. (cacantor@comcast.net)
627 208th Ave Se
Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
Phone: 425-868-7813
Fax: 425-868-7870
Representing the defendants is:
Barry M. Kaplan (bkaplan@wsgr.com)
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: 206-883-2500
Fax: 206-883-2699
JUPITERIMAGES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Stay FACTA Suit Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
yet to rule on a motion for summary judgment and a motion to
stay discovery that were filed in the matter, "Grabein v.
Jupiterimages Corporation, Case No. 1:2007-cv-22288."
On or about Aug. 31, 2007, Wayne Grabein brought a claim against
Jupiterimages Corp. -- doing business as clipart.com -- for
alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended
by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.
Specifically, Mr. Grabein alleges in his complaint that
Jupiterimages violated FACTA by "providing and/or printing"
prohibited information on a purported receipt allegedly provided
to Mr. Grabein. Mr. Grabein seeks nationwide class action
certification for all individuals who have received similar
receipts.
Mr. Grabein also seeks to recover for himself and the defined
class for alleged willful violations of FACTA: statutory
damages, punitive damages, cost and attorneys' fees, interest as
permitted by law, and a permanent injunction.
Jupiterimages has denied the allegations in the complaint and
asserted numerous affirmative defenses.
The Court has issued a scheduling order setting the case for
jury trial in September 2008. No motion for class certification
has been filed yet. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.
Jupiterimages, on April 30, 2008, filed a motion for summary
judgment and a motion to stay discovery. The motions are
currently under consideration by the Court, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
The suit is "Grabein v. Jupiterimages Corporation, Case No.
1:2007cv22288," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Donald L. Graham, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
John Elliott Leighton, Esq. (Leighton@Leesfield.com)
Leesfield Leighton & Partners
2350 S. Dixie Highway
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: 305-854-4900
Fax: 305-854-8266
Jay Mitchell Levy, Esq. (jay@jaylevylaw.com)
Jay M. Levy, P.A.
9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard
Suite 1510, Two Datran Center
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: 305-670-8100
Fax: 305-670-4827
- and -
Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq. (msarelson@sarelson.com)
Sarelson, P.A.
1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 3053790305
Fax: 8004219954
Representing the defendants is:
Todd R. Legon, Esq. (tlegon@lpflaw.com)
Legon Ponce & Fodiman PA
1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2150
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-444-9991
Fax: 305-444-9937
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Nov. 10 Hearing Set for N.J. Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing on Nov. 10, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., to consider
final approval of the proposed settlement of a purported
securities fraud class action suit filed against Majesco
Entertainment Co., entitled "In Re: Majesco Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-03557-FSH-PS."
The Hearing will be held before Judge Peter G. Sheridan in
Courtroom 4A, at the U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut St., in Newark,
New Jersey.
Deadline for the submission of proofs of claim is on Aug. 21,
2008.
Case Background
In July 2005, four purported class action complaints were filed
against the company and several of its current and former
directors and officers before the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. The suits were brought on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the company's securities.
On Sept. 12, 2005, a fifth purported class action complaint was
filed in the same court on behalf of a class of individuals who
purchased shares of common stock in the company in a Jan. 26,
2005 offering, with six million shares of common stock
available.
The complaint named as defendants the company, its current and
former officers, and certain financial institutions who served
as underwriters with respect to the Offering.
In December 2005, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint, which is now the operative
complaint. The complaint names as defendants:
-- the company,
-- Carl Yankowski,
-- Jan E. Chason,
-- Jesse Sutton,
-- Joseph Sutton,
-- Morris Sutton,
-- Laurence Aronson,
-- F. Peter Cuneo,
-- James Halpin,
-- Louis Lipschitz,
-- Marc Weisman,
-- RBC Capital Markets Corp.,
-- JMP Securities LLC,
-- Harris Nesbitt & Corp.,
-- Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc., and
-- Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Offering and certain of the company press
releases and other public filings contained material
misstatements and omissions about the company financial
condition and prospects as well as its products.
The lead plaintiff asserts a claim under Section 11 of the U.S.
Securities Act against all the defendants on behalf of investors
who purchased in the Offering.
The suit also asserts a Section 12(a)(2) claim against the
company and the financial institutions who served as
underwriters in connection with the Offering, and a Section 15
control person claim against defendants Carl Yankowski, Jan
Chason, Jesse Sutton, Joseph Sutton, and Morris Sutton.
The lead plaintiff also asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under against
the Company and the Defendants and a claim under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the Defendants.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The
proposed class period for the Exchange Act claims is Dec. 8,
2004, through Sept. 12, 2005.
On Sept. 27, 2007, the company entered into settlement
agreements to settle the securities class action.
Under the terms of the settlement deal, which is subject to
notice to the shareholder class and court approval, the
company's insurance carrier will make a cash payment and the
company will contribute shares of its common stock with a market
value of $2.5 million.
The shares being contributed to the settlement will be
distributed to the settlement class if and when the court grants
final approval to the settlement and the settlement becomes
effective.
The suit is "In Re: Majesco Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-cv-03557-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Faith S. Hochberg, presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq. (procco@lawssb.com)
Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
163 Madison Ave.
P.O. BOX 1277
Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
Phone: 973-775-8997
Representing the defendants is:
Joseph Domenick Giacoia, Esq. (jgiacoia@cfgny.com)
Capuder Fazio Giacoia
90 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 212-509-9595
MASSACHUSETTS: Settlement Reached in Brain-Injured Patients Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on May 25, 2007, that brain-
injured people in Worcester, Massachusetts filed a class action
suit charging the state with denying them access to community
settings.
The suit alleges that the state violated the Americans With
Disabilities Act and some federal laws by institutionalizing
brain-injured people.
The suit claims that even some of the institutionalized are not
receiving necessary services, including assistance with personal
care, speech, occupational and physical therapy; medical and
nursing services; vocational training or day rehabilitation
programs; medical equipment, transportation; and integrated
social and recreational activities.
The class-action lawsuit against Gov. Deval L. Patrick asked a
judge to order the state to provide the rehabilitative services
needed by brain-injured people and to provide them with
community-based support services.
According to the CAR report, plaintiffs' lawyer Richard
Johnston, Esq., said that there are about 8,200 individuals with
brain injuries residing in nursing and rehabilitation facilities
in Massachusetts.
At least 2,000 of these individuals prefer a community setting
with appropriate support, according to the 32-page complaint.
Because the brain-injured are segregated in nursing homes, their
health is deteriorating, and they are unnecessarily isolated,
the lawsuit said.
In an update, The Republican relates that the state will help
brain-injured patients move out of nursing homes and into
communities under a proposed settlement to the lawsuit.
The agreement was filed in the U.S. District Court in
Springfield on June 1 and is subject to final approval from a
judge.
The plaintiffs told The Republican that the proposed settlement
will enable nearly 2,000 people statewide to move into community
residences. The agreement would create two programs that are
expected to result in at least 200 people per year leaving
nursing homes.
MEDQUIST: Court Stays "Myers" to Allow Settlement Negotiations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entered a
consent order staying the consolidated litigation captioned,
"Myers et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al. Case No. 1:05-cv-04608-
JBS-AMD," to provide the parties time to negotiate a settlement,
according to MedQuist's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.
Hoffmann Putative Class Action
A putative class action complaint was filed on Nov. 29, 2004, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
against the company and certain current and former officials.
The suit is entitled "Brigitte Hoffmann, et al. v. MedQuist,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-3452."
The Hoffman Suit was purportedly brought on behalf of an alleged
class of current and former employees and statutory workers, who
are or were compensated on a "per line" basis for medical
transcription services from Jan. 1, 1998, to the time of the
filing of the complaint. The complaint specifically alleged
that the defendants systematically and wrongfully underpaid the
class members during the class period.
The complaint asserted the following causes of action: fraud,
breach of contract, demand for accounting, quantum meruit,
unjust enrichment, conversion, negligence, negligent
supervision, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
The plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages, punitive
damages, disgorgement and restitution.
On Dec. 1, 2005, the Hoffmann Suit was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. On Jan. 12,
2006, the Court ordered the case consolidated with another
putative class action suit commenced by Myers.
Force Putative Class Action
A putative class action complaint, entitled "Force v. MedQuist
Inc. and MedQuist Transcriptions, Ltd., Case No. 05-cv-2608-
WSD," was filed against the company on Oct. 11, 2005, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of current
and former employees who claim they are or were compensated on a
"per line" basis for medical transcription services but were
allegedly underpaid due to the actions of defendants.
The named plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract,
quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and for a erroneous
accounting.
Upon stipulation and consent of the parties, on Feb. 17, 2006,
the Force Suit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.
Subsequently, on April 4, 2006, the parties entered into a
stipulation and consent order wherein the Force Suit was also
consolidated with the Myers Putative Class Action Suit, and the
consolidated amended complaint filed in the Myers action on
Jan. 31, 2006, was deemed to supersede the original complaint
filed in the Force Suit.
Myers Putative Class Action
A putative class action lawsuit entitled, "Myers, et al. v.
MedQuist Inc. and MedQuist Transcriptions, Ltd., Case No. 05-cv-
4608 (JBS)," was filed against the company on Sept. 22, 2005, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The cuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of the
company's employee and independent contractor transcriptionists
who claim that they contracted with the company to be paid on a
65 character line, but were allegedly underpaid due to
intentional miscounting of the number of characters and lines
transcribed.
The named plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, and request an accounting.
Consolidation & Case Developments
The allegations contained in the Myers case are substantially
similar to those contained in the Hoffmann and Force Suits and
the three cases have now been consolidated.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Jan. 31, 2006,
wherein the plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment and demand an accounting.
On March 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the consolidated amended complaint. The dismissal
motion was later denied by the court.
On Jan. 19, 2007, the company filed an answer denying the mutual
allegations pleaded in the consolidated amended complaint.
The court then issued an order scheduling all pretrial fact
discovery to be completed by Jan. 14, 2008. The court also
subsequently ordered the plaintiffs to file their motion for
class certification by Dec. 14, 2007.
On Oct. 18, 2007, the court heard oral argument on the
plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to written
discovery regarding the company's billing practices. At the
conclusion of that hearing, the court denied the plaintiffs'
request, finding they had not established that the billing
discovery sought was relevant to the claims or defenses
regarding transcriptionist pay alleged in their case.
In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, identifying a proposed class of all of the
company's transcriptionists who were compensated on a per line
basis for work completed on MedRite, MTS or DEP transcription
platforms from Nov. 29, 1998, to the present and alleging that
the proposed class was underpaid by more than $80 million, not
including interest.
The parties have already completed depositions of identified
witnesses. Specifically, the company has deposed each of the
named plaintiffs and all witnesses who offered declarations in
support of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and
the plaintiffs have deposed numerous present and former MedQuist
employees.
The parties also exchanged their initial disclosures. The
plaintiffs' disclosures limited their damages estimate to
$41 million, related to alleged underpayment on the MedRite
transcription platform; however, they stated that they were
continuing to analyze potential undercounting and would
supplement their damages claim.
In March 2008, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended
motion for class certification, dropping all allegations
involving the company's DEP transcription platform and narrowing
the claims asserted regarding the legacy MTS transcription
platform. The company did not oppose the plaintiffs' motion for
leave, which was subsequently granted by the court.
On April 4, 2008, the company filed its opposition to the
plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification.
The parties are now undergoing negotiations to settle all claims
in exchange for payment of $1.5 million plus certain injunctive
relief.
The court recently entered a consent order staying the case to
provide the parties time to negotiate a settlement.
The suit is "Myers et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al. Case No.
1:05-cv-04608-JBS-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Jerome B. Simandle,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Laura A. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@feldmanpinto.com)
Feldman & Pinto
1604 Locust Street, 2R
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-546-2604
Fax: 215-546-9904
- and -
Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. (donna@trrlaw.com)
Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC
8 Kings Highway West
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: 856-795-9002
Representing the defendant is:
Marc J. Gross (mgross@greenbaumlaw.com)
Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, LLP
75 Livingston Avenue, Suite 301
Roseland, NJ 07068-3701
Phone: 973-535-1600
Fax: 973-577-1785
MEDQUIST INC: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
MedQuist, Inc., is facing a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit that was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Burlington County, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
The action, entitled "Alan R. Kahn v. Stephen H. Rusckowski, et
al., Docket No. BUR-C-000007-08," was filed on January 22, 2008,
against the company and its four non-independent directors,
Clement Revetti, Jr., Stephen H. Rusckowski, Gregory M. Sebasky
and Scott Weisenhoff. The plaintiff purports to bring the
action on his own behalf and on behalf of all current holders of
the company's common stock.
The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and due
care by purportedly agreeing to and initiating a process for the
company's sale or a change of control transaction which will
allegedly cause harm to plaintiff and the putative class.
The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus costs
and interest, a judgment declaring that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and that any proposed transactions
regarding the company's sale or change of control are void, an
injunction preventing the company's sale or any change of
control transaction that is not entirely fair to the class, an
order directing the company to appoint three independent
directors to its board of directors, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
regulatory filing.
Medquist Inc. -- http://www.medquist.com/-- is a provider of
medical transcription technology and services. The Company
services health systems, hospitals and large group medical
practices throughout the U.S. In the clinical documentation
workflow, the Company provide, in addition to medical
transcription technology and services, digital dictation, speech
recognition, electronic signature and medical coding technology
and services. The Company is a member of the Philips Group of
Companies and collaborate with Philips Medical Systems in
marketing and product development. The Company performs a
substantial majority of the medical transcription services
utilizing the DocQment Enterprise Platform (DEP), the Company's
Web-based dictation and medical transcription management system.
MILLENNIUM PHARMA: Injunction Bid Against Takeda Buyout Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for Middlesex County, Massachusetts, issued
an order in a purported class action lawsuit against Millennium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., denying a motion that sought for a
preliminary injunction against the biotechnology company's
acquisition by Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
The purported shareholder class action suit was filed on
April 10, 2008, by a single plaintiff against the company and
each of its directors, as well as Takeda, in the Superior Court
for Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The suit is captioned
"Eleanor Turberg v. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 08-1466."
The plaintiff claims to be an individual Millennium stockholder
and seeks certification as a class action on behalf of all
Millennium stockholders except the defendants and any person,
firm, trust, corporation or other entity related to or
affiliated with any defendants.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence,
good faith and fair dealing, and aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties, owed to the company's stockholders in
connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.
The complaint seeks, among other things, an order:
-- enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the
proposed acquisition of shares of the company's common
stock by Takeda,
-- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
proposed acquisition of shares of the company's common
stock by Takeda,
-- awarding the plaintiff and the purported class
damages, and
-- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the
action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees.
On May 5, 2008, the court heard the plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction enjoining the acceptance of tendered
shares by Takeda.
Following the hearing, the court denied the plaintiff's motion,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.
NAUTILUS INC: Faces Suit in Ohio Over Alleged FACTA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nautilus, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit
before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
that alleges violations of the Fair Credit and Accurate
Transaction Act.
The suit was filed on Oct. 29, 2007, by Sue Repenning,
individually and on behalf of a group of allegedly similarly
situated individuals.
The suit alleges that the company was not compliant with certain
aspects of FACTA as regards the proper display of credit card
information for customers who place an order for products on the
company's Web site.
The plaintiff seeks the statutory penalty set forth in FACTA for
each violation which ranges from $100 to $1,000 per violation,
as well as punitive damages, and attorneys fees and costs.
The case is in the early stages of discovery and has not yet
been certified as a class action, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
The suit is "Repenning v. Nautilus, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-
cv-03350-PAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Judge Patricia A. Gaughan, presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. (dgoetz@weismanlaw.com)
Weisman, Kennedy & Berris
1600 Midland Bldg.
101 Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: 216-781-1111
Fax: 216-781-6747
Representing the defendant is:
Arthur M. Kaufman, Esq. (amkaufman@hahnlaw.com)
Hahn, Loeser & Parks
3300 BP Tower
200 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: 216-274-2263
Fax: 216-241-2824
TRAFIGURA: Africans Seek Damages Over Toxic Waste Via UK Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
British lawyers have mounted "the largest class action yet
lodged in the UK courts" for up to 30,000 Africans allegedly
poisoned by toxic waste dumped by an oil tanker, Times Online
reports.
According to Times, the action is being brought against
Trafigura, a London-based multinational, over the dumping of 400
tonnes of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast in 2006.
The waste, the report notes, contains high levels of caustic
soda, a sulphur compound and hydrogen sulphide, and gave off
toxic fumes and allegedly led to 100,000 people going to clinics
suffering from vomiting, diarrhea and breathing difficulties
after exposure to the waste. Times also says that 10 people
died from the poisoning.
The report relates that the suit accuses Trafigura of dumping
the poisonous black sludge, or slops, that arose from removing
impurities including sulphur from the raw oil, in rubbish tips,
drains, abattoirs and lagoons in Abidjan, the commercial capital
of the Ivory Coast, in August 2006.
Specifically, the pollution came about after a Trafigura-
chartered tanker failed to agree a price to dispose of the waste
with the Dutch Government. An Ivory Coast company was awarded
the waste disposal contract instead. The director of Trafigura,
Claude Dauphin, and two other executives of the trading group
found themselves arrested and held in prison in Abidjan when in
September 2006 they flew to the country to investigate the
pollution. They were released later.
The Ivory Coast Government was forced to resign and the United
Nations paid GBP30 million to help with the medical costs of
setting up free clinics and cleaning up.
Now, a team of 15 British lawyers has lodged claims for 17,000
people and has just returned from the Ivory Coast with a fresh
tranche of 3,000 claims, the report says. At a recent hearing
in the High Court in London, the lawyers predicted that the
total number of class members would reach 30,000 by trial. The
trial is expected to take place between April and July 2009.
Martyn Day, senior partner with Leigh Day & Co, which is funding
the group action from its own funds on a "no win, no fee" basis,
told Times that it was right that a multinational was held to
account in the British courts. "That we can bring a case with
30,000 claimants from a far-off land to trial within three years
of the events shows that in England we have a system for group
claims that is second-to-none in the world in holding
multinationals to account for their actions," he said.
Times points out that the law firm was brought in by Greenpeace,
which in turn was asked to help by the Ivorean Government.
Until 2006, Mr. Day was chairman of Greenpeace U.K. and is still
on the executive of the Greenpeace Trust.
"We would not be bringing the claims under the 'no win, no fee'
scheme if we did not think that they had a strong chance of
winning," Mr. Day further shared with Times. "The strength of
our system is that by allowing us to charge a success fee in the
claims we win, we can develop a treasure chest to help to
finance large cases like this."
Legal proceedings began in November 2006 and the court granted
an order for the group litigation to proceed in February 2007.
That same month, it emerged that the company had agreed to pay
GBP100 million to the Ivory Coast for the environmental damage
caused, in one of the largest settlements of its kind. The
money was to enable the State to clean the sites and to make
payments to individuals claiming to have been affected by the
dumping. The company has made no admission of liability.
Simon Nurney, a partner with Macfarlanes, who is acting for
Trafigura, told Times, "Not only does Trafigura not accept that
it was liable for the events, it also does not consider that the
slops dumped by the local company could have caused anything
like the symptoms alleged by the claimants in the English court
proceedings.
"Trafigura sought reputable local advice in 2006 as to which
companies were able to undertake the deslopping operation. It
relied on that local advice, together with the fact that the
company eventually selected was readily able to provide
governmental licences and port approvals for undertaking this
type of activity."
Mr. Nurney added that Trafigura exercised "far more care" in
assessing the local company than usually undertaken by
shipowners or charterers for a deslopping operation. In no way,
he said, did the investigation support "the presumption that the
slops did, in fact, cause the injuries alleged." The company
paid the GBP100 million to the Government of the Ivory Coast, he
said, "because as a major trading company in West Africa for a
number of years, Trafigura believes it has an economic
responsibility to the region. It also has considerable sympathy
for the people of Abidjan and is working to improve their
lives."
TRILEGIANT CORP: July 18 Hearing Set for $25M Deal in "Pederson"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois, will hold a fairness hearing on July 18, 2008, at 9:00
a.m., for the proposed $25-million settlement of the matter,
"Pederson v. Trilegiant, Case No. 01-L-1126," which names
Trilegiant Corp., now known as Affinion Group, Inc., as a
defendant.
The hearing will be held in the Madison County Courthouse, 155
North Main Street, Suite 120, in Edwardsville, Illinois.
Objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before June 20, 2008. Deadline for the submission of
a request form is on Jan. 15, 2009.
The purported class action suit was filed against Trilegiant
Corp. in the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, in Madison
County, Illinois, in July 2001, in connection with various
membership-based products or programs offered, sold, serviced,
or provided to consumers by or through Trilegiant Corp. or an
entity with which Trilegiant has a business relationship, and
for which the member was charged a membership fee.
These products or programs include but are not limited to
Privacy Guard, Credit Alert, AutoVantage, Travelers Advantage,
Buyers Advantage, Complete Home, Digital Protection Plus, Great
Fun, Great Options, HealthSaver, Hot-Line, Just For Me, National
Card Registry, Netmarket.com, Shoppers Advantage, and Travel ER,
along with similar programs marketed or created with Trilegiant
that have the same or substantially the same characteristics of
these memberships, regardless of the name of the product.
The lawsuit claims that Trilegiant enrolls consumers in
membership programs through deceptive or unfair means, and
places membership charges on consumers' credit or debit cards,
bank accounts, telephone bills, or home mortgage accounts
without proper authorization or consent.
It further alleges that Trilegiant refuses to cancel memberships
upon a consumer's request.
The following related actions alleging substantially similar
claims are also part of the Settlement:
-- "Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corporation," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California;
-- "Schnickel v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation,
Inc.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey; and
-- "Power v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
For more details, contact:
Trilegiant Claims Administrator
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.,
P.O. Box 670
Minneapolis, MN 55440-0670
Phone: 1-888-952-9102
Web site: http://www.trisettlement.com/
UNION PACIFIC: Railroad Victims Class Certified; Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas families whose loved ones were either killed or injured
in accidents involving Union Pacific Railroad (NYSE: UNP)
between 1992 and 2005 and who later settled with the company are
being notified they have been certified as a legal class to
pursue additional compensation for their claims.
On April 11, 2008, Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge Jim
Hudson determined that a class action should proceed in the case
of "Victor S. Vickers, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad, et al.
Case No. CV-2005-005-2."
Judge Hudson also issued a court order May 29, 2008, instructing
class attorneys to begin notifying all Arkansans of their right
to pursue legal action against Union Pacific for violating the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices act. The railroad is accused
of pressuring families and individuals to settle claims against
the company without legal representation and for illegally
engaging in the practice of law, while it admits no wrongdoing.
The notices says:
If you settled a personal injury or wrongful death claim
with Union Pacific from 1992 to Feb. 14, 2005, and you were
an unrepresented, non-railroad employee and a citizen of
Arkansas, you are a class member.
"We know of more than 100 Arkansans affected by this class
action certification, but we believe there are probably many
more," said Phillip Duncan, Esq. Tom Jones, Esq., and Mike
Roberts, Esq., also are attorneys representing the class
members.
Union Pacific has filed a notice to appeal Judge Hudson's ruling
certifying the class. The case is scheduled to move forward on
a class-wide basis. However, no trial date has been scheduled.
US AGRICULTURE DEPT: Sued by Farmers Over Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of James Scott Farrin, and McEachin & Gee LLP
filed a lawsuit on June 2, 2008, in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (Case Number 1:08-cv-00940),
on behalf of the National Black Farmers Association and hundreds
of the nearly 40,000 African American farmers they represent in
claims of discrimination against the federal government.
"Forty acres and a mule. The government broke that promise to
African American farmers," Judge Paul L. Friedman wrote in a
Consent Decree as part of the original Pigford litigation
concerning government discrimination against African American
farmers on April 14, 1999. Despite the Court's intent that the
class action provide compensation to black farmers who were
victims of discrimination, tens of thousands of African American
farmers never even had a chance to have their claims reviewed.
Enacting legislation proposed in part by Senator Barack Obama,
Congress has effectively reopened Pigford v. Glickman and
allowed black farmers who filed late claims of racial
discrimination in the Pigford case to go forward with a new case
to receive a determination on the merits. (The Food and Energy
Security Act of 2008, or the Farm Bill.)
Commenting on the recent filing, James Scott Farrin, Esq., said,
"The USDA failed our clients, and the class action settlement
failed our clients. Our clients want action, and our clients
want change -- the time for both is now."
For more information, contact:
Eric Sanchez, Esq.
Law Offices of James Scott Farrin
Phone: 800-220-7321
e-mail: publicrelations@farrin.com
US GOVERNMENT: FIAC Sues Over Delayed Citizenship Applications
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Immigration Advocacy Center filed a class action
suit seeking decision on citizenship applications delayed for
years, Luis F. Perez of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.
The suit accuses the federal government of excessive delays in
processing citizenship applications. Federal law requires that
the agency process those applications within four months of the
naturalization interview, the lawsuit says.
According to the report, there are hundreds, if not thousands,
of delayed applications in South Florida. The advocacy center
estimates more than 50,000 immigrants across the country are in
similar circumstances.
The plaintiffs in the suit are asking the court to require the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, the agency that
handles the naturalization process, to finalize their
applications within 90 days.
Ana Santiago, a USCIS spokeswoman, said the agency does not
comment on pending litigation.
"But USCIS is working after hours and on weekends long and hard
to efficiently and securely process these application," she
said. "We understand and recognize the need of these
individuals that have applied for this immigration benefit. But
we cannot compromise the security of the nation by cutting
corners and taking shortcuts."
WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Appeals Court Reverses "Cuesta" Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Civil Appeals of the State of Oklahoma reversed a
ruling by the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma that certified
a nationwide class in the product liability case captioned,
"Cuesta v. Ford, et al.," which names Williams Controls Inc. as
a defendant, according to Williams Controls' May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.
The company was named as co-defendant in the matter on Oct. 1,
2004. The suit sought class-action status, and an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the class.
During the second quarter of fiscal 2007, the Oklahoma district
court granted the plaintiffs class-action status.
The company and Ford appealed the District Court's class
certification ruling to the Court of Civil Appeals of the State
of Oklahoma.
On March 21, 2008, the Appeals Court, in a 3-to-0 decision,
reversed the District Court's ruling and decertified the
nationwide class.
As permitted under Oklahoma law, the plaintiffs have filed for a
re-hearing by the Appeals Court and on April 18, 2008, the
Appeals Court denied the motion for re-hearing.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
regulatory filing.
The suit is "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Co., CJ-04-
0511," filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.
For more details, contact:
The Burrage Law Firm
First United Center
Suite 100, 115 N. Washington
Durant, OK 74702-1727
Phone: 580-920-0700
e-mail: dburrage@burragelaw.com
Web site: http://www.burragelaw.com/
New Securities Fraud Cases
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody disclosed that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. between September 13, 2006, and
July 30, 2007.
The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants failed to
fully disclose the nature and extent of the Company's exposure
to losses incurred from trading in subprime mortgage-backed
derivatives and that the Company failed to timely writedown its
positions in these securities.
On July 10, 2007, Lehman Brothers announced that it had
"unrealized" losses of $459 million in the quarter ended May 31,
2007, from mortgages and mortgage-backed assets in its
inventory.
On the same day, it was reported that Standard and Poor's
indicated that it may cut ratings on $12 billion of bonds backed
by subprime mortgages, a move that would significantly cut into
the Company's trading profits, since it is Wall Street's largest
underwriter of mortgage bonds. As a result of the news, Lehman
Brothers' stock fell $3.76 per share on July 10, 2007, on
unusually high trading volume. Throughout the remainder of the
Class Period, Lehman Brothers continued to downplay the risks
associated with owning these mortgage-backed securities, and the
nature and true extent of the Company's exposure to subprime-
related assets and financial positions. On July 26, 2007, it
was reported by Bloomberg that the risk of owning Lehman
Brothers' bonds "soared" and its share price plunged "as
concerns escalated that investment banks will be hurt by losses
from subprime mortgages and corporate debt."
The report detailed the soaring cost of credit-default swaps
used to bet on Lehman Brothers' creditworthiness, signaling a
significant deterioration in investor confidence. On this news,
Lehman Brothers' shares fell an additional $3.16 per share on
July 26, 2007, again on unusually heavy trading volume.
Finally, on July 31, 2007, Bloomberg reported that ". . .Lehman
Brothers (is) as good as junk" because the prices of credit-
default swaps for the Company equated to a Ba1 rating, implying
that the Company's credit ratings were below investment grade.
On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.80 on
heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Lehman's publicly traded
securities during the Class Period, which is between Sept. 13,
2006, and July 30, 2007.
Interested parties may move the court no later than June 30,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Tzivia Brody, Esq.
Stull, Stull & Brody
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983
Fax: 1-212-490-2022
Web site: http://www.ssbny.com
NEXCEN BRANDS: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., commenced a securities
class action suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who
acquired NexCen Brands, Inc. securities between May 10, 2007,
and May 19, 2008, inclusive.
The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.
For more information, contact:
Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
261 Old York Road, Suite 423
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Phone: 215-886-1900
e-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Brower Piven Files Wisconsin Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, Commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of TomoTherapy, Inc. between February 13, 2008, and
April 17, 2008, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Company, and certain of its officers and directors, violated
federal securities laws by withholding material facts from the
investing public.
TomoTherapy develops, markets and sells the Hi-Art system, is a
radiation therapy system for the treatment of various types of
cancer. As alleged in the complaint, defendants concealed in
their February Press Release that:
(a) a larger percentage of TomoTherapy's revenue backlog at
December 31, 2007 and TomoTherapy's new orders received
through February 12, 2008 were from for-profit entities
which had ordered multi-unit Hi-Art Systems and had
scheduled deliveries of the multi-units sequentially
throughout 2008 and 2009;
(b) the average selling prices were lower in Q1'08 by
approximately 11% than they had been in Q1'07 because
Q1'07 sales included a large number of European sales
denominated in Euros;
(c) new sales orders from Europe had slowed in Q1'08
through February 12, 2008 and TomoTherapy was
experiencing a serious delay in closing European
orders;
(d) TomoTherapy's gross margins in Q1'08 were and would
continue to be approximately 20% lower than they had
been in Q1'07; and
(e) TomoTherapy's revenues in Q1'08 would be substantially
lower and would not show increased growth from either
Q1'07 or Q4'07 and that TomoTherapy would suffer a loss
in Q1'08.
Shortly after the February Release, director Neis sold
approximately 917,621 shares of TomoTherapy common stock during
February 26, 2008, through March 14, 2008.
Interested parties may move the court no later than July 29,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Charles J. Piven, Esq.,
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
The World Trade Center-Baltimore
401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: 410-332-0030
e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STERIS Corporation May Face Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation face potential legal proceedings and claims,
including product exposure (e.g., claimed exposure to chemicals,
asbestos, contaminants, radiation).
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 30, 2008.
Mentor, Ohio-based STERIS Corporation is a provider of infection
prevention and surgical products and services. The Company is
focused on healthcare, pharmaceutical and research markets.
Products include sterilizers and surgical tables; consumable
products, such as detergents and skin care products; and
services, including equipment installation and maintenance; as
well as the bulk sterilization of single-use medical devices.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation is subject to legal proceedings,
which include asbestos exposure allegations.
These claims may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage
claims (potentially in large amounts) or as well as other types
of relief.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 30, 2008.
Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based Sears Holdings Corporation is the
parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck
and Co. The Company is a retailer with about 2,300 full-line and
1,200 specialty retail stores in the United States operating
through Kmart and Sears and about 380 full-line and specialty
retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc., a
70 percent-owned subsidiary.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.4MM Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's estimation of its asbestos-
related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles is
about US$8.4 million, which has been reflected as a liability in
the consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2008.
Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of about US$400,000 over the next 12 months.
Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability through March 31, 2026, and
March 31, 2038, to range between US$5 million and US$15 million.
Amherst, N.Y.-based Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a
manufacturer and marketer of hoists, cranes, chain, conveyors,
material handling systems, lift tables and component parts
serving various commercial and industrial end-user markets.
Brand names include CM, Coffing, Duff-Norton, Shaw-Box and Yale.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navistar Liabilities Total $124M at Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation's non-current liabilities
were US$124 million at Oct. 31, 2007, compared with US$117
million at Oct. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 29, 2008.
These liabilities were for asbestos, environmental, and product
liability litigation.
The Company's current liabilities were US$44 million at Oct. 31,
2007, compared with US$29 million at Oct. 31, 2006.
These liabilities were also for asbestos, environmental, and
product liability litigation.
Along with other vehicle manufacturers, the Company has been
subject to an increase in the number of asbestos-related claims
in recent years. In general, these claims relate to illnesses
alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component
parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the
alleged presence of asbestos in the Company's facilities.
In these claims, the Company is not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers
of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos.
Warrenville, Ill.-based Navistar International Corporation
operates as a heavy-duty truck producer. The Company also
manufactures mid-sized trucks, school buses, diesel engines, and
replacement parts. The Company also provides financing and
insurance for its dealers and customers and sells its diesel
engines to other truck makers, primarily Ford Motor Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deere Still Subject to Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company continues to be subject to various unresolved
legal actions, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including asbestos related liability), retail credit,
software licensing, patent and trademark matters.
No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 29, 2008.
Moline, Ill.-based Deere & Company, a maker of farm equipment,
is also a producer of industrial, forestry, and lawn-care
equipment. Farm equipment includes tractors, tillers, harvesting
machinery, and soil-preparation machinery. Construction
equipment includes backhoes, skid steers, dump trucks, waste
equipment, and excavators.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Precision Castparts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. continues to be a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
chemicals and particulates, including asbestos, integrated into
its premises and processes and certain historical products.
The particulates at issue are no longer incorporated in any
currently manufactured products, and the Company has implemented
safety protocols to reduce exposure to chemicals and remaining
particulates in the workplace.
To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these
suits and have settled a number of others, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 29, 2008.
Portland, Ore.-based Precision Castparts Corp. manufactures
complex metal components and products, provides high-quality
investment castings, forgings and fasteners/fastener systems for
critical aerospace and industrial gas turbine ("IGT")
applications.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Cites 690 Stearns Cases at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. says that certain subsidiaries have been named
as a defendant in about 690 asbestos-related lawsuits (with
about 6,850 claimants) relating to its Stearns division.
These suits are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos and certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by Stearns.
Invensys plc and FMC, the prior owner of the Stearns business,
have paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the
Stearns lawsuits.
Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is a diversified, multi-
platform industrial company strategically well positioned within
the markets and industries it serves. The Company's business is
comprised of two strategic platforms: (i) Power Transmission
and (ii) Water Management. PT products include gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop, aerospace bearings and seals,
special components and industrial chain.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Cites 2 Prager Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary has been named as a
defendant in two pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of
asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager.
There are about 3,700 claimants in the Prager lawsuits. To date,
the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent of the
costs related to the Prager lawsuits.
The Company said it believes that the combination of its
insurance coverage and the Invensys plc indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these suits.
Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is a diversified, multi-
platform industrial company strategically well positioned within
the markets and industries it serves. The Company's business is
comprised of two strategic platforms: (i) Power Transmission
and (ii) Water Management. PT products include gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop, aerospace bearings and seals,
special components and industrial chain.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global's Falk Unit Still Has 130 Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s unit, Falk Corporation, continues to be a
defendant in about 130 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 23, 2008.
These lawsuits are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.
There are about 3,000 claimants in these suits.
Hamilton Sundstrand, a division of United Technologies
Corporation, is defending Falk in these lawsuits under its
indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the costs to
date.
Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is a diversified, multi-
platform industrial company strategically well positioned within
the markets and industries it serves. The Company's business is
comprised of two strategic platforms: (i) Power Transmission
and (ii) Water Management. PT products include gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop, aerospace bearings and seals,
special components and industrial chain.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 6,900 Lawsuits Pending v. Zurn at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s says that one of its Water Management (WM)
subsidiaries, Zurn Industries, LLC, is a defendant in about
6,900 asbestos-related cases representing about 45,000 claims.
Certain WM subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos and class
action related litigation as a result of the acquisition of Zurn
in February 2007.
The suits allege damages in an aggregate amount of about US$13.4
billion against the Company and 72 other unrelated defendants.
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure
to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn.
Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are
being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.
The Company currently estimates the potential liability for
asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well as the
claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years is about
US$$134 million, of which Zurn expects to pay about US$116
million in the next 10 years on those claims, with the balance
of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years.
Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2008, is about
US$281.5 million, and believes that all current claims are
covered by this insurance.
However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of
certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage
gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have
paid the first US$205.5 million of aggregate liabilities.
In order for the next US$51 million of insurance coverage from
solvent carriers to apply, management estimates that it would
need to satisfy US$14 million of asbestos claims.
Layered within the final US$25 million of the total US$281.5
million of coverage, management estimates that it would need to
satisfy an additional US$80 million of asbestos claims.
As of March 31, 2008, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of US$134 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable
of recovery.
However, there is no assurance that US$281.5 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$281.5
million.
Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is a diversified, multi-
platform industrial company strategically well positioned within
the markets and industries it serves. The Company's business is
comprised of two strategic platforms: (i) Power Transmission
and (ii) Water Management. PT products include gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop, aerospace bearings and seals,
special components and industrial chain.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits Still Pending v. Fairchild Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits are still pending
against The Fairchild Corporation, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 15, 2008.
On Jan. 21, 2003, the Company and one of its subsidiaries were
served with a third-party complaint in an action brought in New
York by a non-employee worker and his spouse alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.
The defendant, who is one of many defendants in the action,
purchased a pump business from the Company, and asserts the
right to be indemnified by the Company under its purchase
agreement.
The case was discontinued as to all defendants, thereby
extinguishing the indemnity claim against the Company in the
instant case. However, the purchaser notified the Company of,
and claimed a right to indemnity from the Company in relation to
thousands of other asbestos-related claims filed against it.
During the last 55 months, the Company has been served directly
by plaintiffs' counsel in cases related to the same pump
business. A couple of these cases were dismissed as to all
defendants based upon forum objections.
The Company was voluntarily dismissed from additional pump
business cases during the same period, without the payment of
any consideration to plaintiffs.
During the last 55 months, the Company, or its subsidiaries, has
been served with separate complaints in actions filed in various
venues by non-employee workers, alleging personal injury or
wrongful death as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products other than those related to the pump business.
The plaintiffs' complaints do not specify which, if any, of the
Company's former products are at issue, making it difficult to
assess the merit and value, if any, of the asserted claims.
During the same time period, the Company has resolved similar,
non-pump, asbestos-related lawsuits that were previously served
upon the Company. In most of the cases, the Company was
voluntarily dismissed, without the payment of any consideration
to plaintiffs. The remaining few cases were settled for nominal
amounts.
Certain of the asbestos suits filed in New York relate to a
product known as Patterson Pump. The Company has very little
knowledge concerning Patterson Pump and believes that
successorship liability followed the sale of the product line to
another entity.
The carriers defending those suits have taken the position that
the automatic stay in the Bankruptcy of Skinner Engine, one of
the Company's former product lines, prevents them from paying
any indemnity on the asbestos suits.
Because the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals
of most of the New York asbestos suits, the carriers'
reservation of rights as to indemnity has not been an issue
until recently.
One of the New York asbestos suits was scheduled for trial on
May 5, 2008.
The carriers notified the Company that the automatic stay in the
Skinner Engine bankruptcy would prevent them from satisfying any
judgments in the event the plaintiff received a verdict.
However, before trial, the Company's motion for summary judgment
was granted and Fairchild was dismissed from the suit.
As a result of the foregoing, the Company has determined that it
will file a motion in the Skinner Engine bankruptcy to lift the
stay so that the carriers will be required to respond to any
potential verdicts that may be handed down in the future.
Based in McLean, Va., The Fairchild Corporation's business
consists of three segments: PoloExpress; Hein Gericke; and
Aerospace. PoloExpress and Hein Gericke are engaged in the
design and retail sale of motorcycle apparel, protective
clothing, helmets, and technical accessories for motorcyclists
in Europe. Aerospace stocks aircraft parts and distributes them
to commercial airlines and air cargo carriers, fixed-base
operators, corporate aircraft operators, and other aerospace
companies.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FutureFuel Chem. May Face Asbestos Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
FutureFuel Corp.'s subsidiary, FutureFuel Chemical Company, and
its operations may be parties to, or targets of, lawsuits,
claims, investigations and proceedings, including asbestos.
FutureFuel Chemical may also be party to actions on product
liability, personal injury, patent and intellectual property,
commercial, contract, environmental, antitrust, health and
safety, and employment matters.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 15, 2008.
St. Louis-based FutureFuel Corp. develops, manufactures, and
markets products for two business units: Biofuels and Specialty
Chemicals.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Faces Cases in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus Metering Systems, Inc., along with as many as 200 or more
other companies, continues to be a defendant in several lawsuits
filed in various state courts in Mississippi by groups of
plaintiffs alleging illnesses from exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.
These suits seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
Currently, it is uncertain whether any plaintiffs have dealt
with any of the Company's products, were exposed to an asbestos-
containing component part of a product of the Company or whether
such part could have been a contributing factor to the alleged
illness.
Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for
liabilities and legal costs for asbestos claims related to these
products from certain subsidiaries of Invensys plc, such
indemnities, when aggregated with all other indemnity claims,
are limited to the purchase price paid by the Company in
connection with the acquisition of Invensys Metering Systems.
Raleigh, N.C.-based Sensus Metering Systems, Inc. is a provider
of advanced metering technologies and related metering
communications systems to the worldwide utility industry and has
experience in designing and manufacturing metering products.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records $182.3M March 31 Adjustments
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. recorded asbestos adjustments of
US$182.3 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2008,
compared with US$286.3 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2007.
Asbestos adjustments were US$240.1 million for the fiscal year
2008, compared with US$404.5 million for the fiscal year 2007.
Under current assets, as of March 31, 2008, restricted cash and
cash equivalents for asbestos were US$37.4 million, restricted
short-term investments for asbestos were US$77.7 million,
asbestos insurance receivable was US$14.1 million, asbestos
workers' compensation was US$6.9 million, and asbestos-related
deferred income taxes were US$9.1 million.
Under long-term assets, as of March 31, 2008, asbestos-related
workers' compensation was US$78.5 million and asbestos-related
deferred income taxes were US$397.1 million.
Under current liabilities, as of March 31, 2008, current
asbestos liability was US$78.7 million and asbestos workers'
compensation was US$6.9 million.
Under long-term liabilities, as of March 31, 2008, long-term
asbestos liability was US$1.498 billion and asbestos workers'
compensation was US$78.5 million.
At March 31, 2006, the Company recorded an asbestos provision
based on the estimated economic reality of the Original Final
Funding Agreement entered into on Dec. 1, 2005.
The amount of the asbestos provision of US$715.6 million was
based on the terms of the Original FFA, which included an
actuarial estimate prepared by KPMG Actuaries as of March 31,
2006 of the projected future cash outflows, undiscounted and
uninflated, and the anticipated tax deduction arising from
Australian legislation which came into force on April 6, 2006.
In February 2007, the shareholders approved the Amended FFA
entered into on Nov. 21, 2006 to provide long-term funding to
the AICF, a special purpose fund that provides compensation for
Australian-related personal injuries for which certain former
subsidiary companies of James Hardie in Australia (being Amaca
Pty Ltd, Amaba Pty Ltd and ABN 60 Pty Limited (collectively, the
"Liable Entities")) are found liable.
Amaca and Amaba separated from the James Hardie Group in
February 2001. ABN 60 separated from the James Hardie Group in
March 2003.
Upon shareholder approval of the Amended FFA in February 2007,
shares in the Liable Entities were transferred to the AICF. The
Company appoints three of the AICF directors and the NSW state
government appoints two of the AICF directors.
Based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, James Hardie Industries NV
is a pioneer in cellulose-reinforced fiber cement. The Company
uses the material to create products for residential and
commercial construction, including siding (Hardiplank), external
cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company also makes
fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) pipe through its Hardie Pipe
business.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hickey Action Ongoing v. Sealed Air in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation is a defendant in the case of Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Hickey, et al.
(Case No. 03-CV-4372) in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Newark).
Filed on Sept. 15, 2003, the suit seeks class action status on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of the Company during the period from March 27, 2000
through July 30, 2002.
The lawsuit names the Company and five current and former
officers and directors of the Company as defendants.
On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff Miles Senn's
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of his
choice of lead counsel.
The plaintiff's amended complaint makes a number of allegations
against the defendants. The principal allegations are that
during the above period the defendants materially misled the
investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
Company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. GAAP by failing to properly account
and accrue for the Company's contingent liability for asbestos
claims arising from past operations of W. R. Grace & Co.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief.
On March 14, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Senn v.
Hickey, et al. case for failure to state a claim.
On Dec. 19, 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court determined that the Complaint failed adequately to
allege scienter as to the four individual defendants other than
T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with
respect to these four individual defendants, but adequately
alleged scienter as to Mr. Dunphy and the Company. Mr. Dunphy is
a current director of the Company and was formerly Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.
On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the Court
reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the Company's
arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative, that the
Court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal.
On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint. On April 7, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on
defendants' reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006, the
Court denied the motion.
On Oct. 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of the Company during the period from March 27, 2000 through
July 30, 2002.
On Nov. 22, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended motion for class
certification, seeking to withdraw as a representative, the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System
("MPERS").
On March 26, 2007, the Court entered an order permitting Miles
Senn to withdraw as lead plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be
substituted as lead plaintiff. Consequently, the case is now
properly referred to as MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al.
On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as lead plaintiff, filed a motion to
certify a class of all persons or entities that purchased Sealed
Air Corporation securities during the period from March 27, 2000
through July 30, 2002, both dates inclusive, and were damaged
thereby. On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed
their memorandum of law in opposition to MPERS's motion for
class certification.
On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy also filed a motion
for reconsideration or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing
that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
require dismissal of MPERS's claims.
In an Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2008, the Court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification. Subsequently, in an
Opinion and Order dated March 14, 2008, the Court denied
defendants' motion of reconsideration of their motion to dismiss
the complaint premised on the Supreme Court's decisions in
Tellabs and Twombly.
On March 27, 2008, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed a petition
for leave to appeal the district court's class certification
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
Plaintiff has opposed this petition. This petition is now fully
briefed and pending before the 3rd Circuit. Discovery is
ongoing.
Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation is a
manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and
consumer applications. The Company conducts its business through
two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed
Air Corporation (US).
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation and certain of
its affiliates continue to face claims filed in jurisdictions
across the United State by persons alleging bodily injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.
Since 2000, the number of such claims has increased and the
resolution of these claims may take a significant period of
time. Most of these claims have been made against the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation
(RFPC), and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the
time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC.
On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former
stockholder of RFPC contending that the Company assumed that
entity's liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to
RFPC's product was resolved in the Company's favor.
Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.
Wilmerding, Pa.-based Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation provides products and services for the global rail
industry. The Company's products are found on U.S. locomotives,
freight cars and passenger transit vehicles, as well as in more
than 100 countries throughout the world. The Company has
operations in 12 countries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Patriot Risk Reserves $6.8 Mln for Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patriot Risk Management, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, had
established reserves of US$6.8 million for losses attributable
to legacy asbestos and environmental claims, which include 38
direct claims and the Company's participation in two reinsurance
pools and its estimate for the impact of unreported claims.
The Company's subsidiary, Guarantee Insurance Company, has
legacy commercial general liability claims, including asbestos
and environmental liability claims, arising out of the sale of
general liability insurance and participations in reinsurance
assumed through underwriting management organizations, commonly
referred to as pools.
Guarantee Insurance ceased offering direct liability coverage in
1983 and ceased participations in reinsurance pools after 1982.
In addition to the general uncertainties encountered in
estimating workers' compensation loss and loss adjustment
expense reserves, there are significant additional uncertainties
in estimating the amount of the Company's potential losses from
asbestos and environmental claims.
In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had established
reserves in the amount of US$3.7 million for losses attributable
to legacy commercial general liability claims.
For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, incurred losses and loss
adjustment expenses associated with favorable development of
reserves for legacy claims were US$1.3 million.
For the years ended Dec. 31, 2006 and 2005, incurred losses and
loss adjustment expenses associated with adverse development of
reserves for legacy asbestos and environmental and commercial
general liability claims were US$516,000 and US$421,000,
respectively.
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Patriot Risk Management, Inc. is a
workers' compensation risk management company that provides
alternative market and traditional workers' compensation
products and services. The Company provides risk management
products and services to employers in Florida, 18 other states
and the District of Columbia.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Still Involved in Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. continues to be involved in
actions that allege harm caused by products the Company has
allegedly made or used, containing asbestos, silica, and vinyl
chloride monomer.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 14, 2008.
Columbus, Ohio-based Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. serves
global industrial markets through thermoset technologies,
specialty products and technical support for customers in a
diverse range of applications and industries. The Company is
owned by an affiliate of Apollo Management, L.P.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and subsidiary D/C Corporation continue personal injury actions
allegedly based on exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 14, 2008.
While there are a few such cases that name the Company, there
are a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C
on the U.S. Mainland (primarily in California).
Cases against the Company are allegedly based on its prior
business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are
allegedly based on D/C's prior distribution business operations
primarily in California.
On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and
Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Francisco,
Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served.
In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and
for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff
alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for
defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly
based on exposure to asbestos containing products.
Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been
able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing
policy or policies is needed.
Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights,
and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or
policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff was
not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that
the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been
incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment
and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for
defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation
of cooperation with plaintiff.
D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. D/C said it
believed that it was entitled to amounts from plaintiffs for
reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by D/C on the
lawsuits previously tendered.
In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations
while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement
and Security Agreement with the Company, in August 2006, whereby
the Company provided certain advances against a promissory note
delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C
insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit.
In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000. That settlement amount
was paid to the Company in partial satisfaction of the secured
indebtedness.
Chicago-based Kaanapali Land, LLC is the reorganized entity
resulting from the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii,
LLC, certain of its subsidiaries and FHT Corporation under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, dated June 11, 2002. The
Company's continuing operations are in three business segments:
Agriculture, Property and Golf. The Property, Agriculture and
Golf segments operate exclusively in the State of Hawaii.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baymeadows Incurs $105,000 Cost for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelter Properties IV's investment property, Baymeadows
Apartments in Jacksonville, Fla., incurred about US$105,000 of
asbestos abatement during the three months ended March 31, 2008,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2008.
During October 2007, Baymeadows Apartments incurred about
USA$275,000 in water damages and clean up expenses of about
US$215,000, during the three months ended March 31, 2008 from a
severe storm.
All of the asbestos related work was complete as of March 31,
2008.
Subsequent to March 31, 2008, the Company received insurance
proceeds of about US$265,000 to cover the damages and expects to
record a casualty gain during the second quarter of 2008 from
this event.
Greenville, S.C.-based Shelter Properties IV's investment
property consists of one apartment complex, Baymeadows
Apartments in Jacksonville, Fla.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Actions Still Ongoing v. DFH, Premix
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries, DFH, Inc. and Premix-
Marbletite Manufacturing Co., continue to face asbestos-related
actions.
DFH and Premix are engaged in other legal actions and claims
arising in the ordinary course of its business, including four
claims against Premix (one of which includes the Company as a
defendant) and non-affiliated parties which allege bodily injury
due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured
in excess of 30 years ago.
The Company's insurance carriers have accepted coverage and are
proving a defense in three of these lawsuits, and these carriers
are expected to accept coverage and provide a defense in the
fourth case, which has recently been filed and has not yet been
formerly served upon Premix.
The Company said it believes that Premix and the Company have
more than adequate insurance coverage for these asbestos claims
and those policies are not subject to S.I.R. Requirements.
None of Premix's or the Company currently manufactured products
containing asbestos.
Pompano Beach, Fla.-based Imperial Industries, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Just-Rite Supply, Inc., Premix-
Marbletite Manufacturing Co., DFH, Inc., formerly known as
Acrocrete, Inc., and Triple I Leasing, Inc., are involved in the
manufacture and sale of exterior and interior finishing wall
coatings and mortar products for the construction industry, as
well as the purchase and resale of building materials from other
manufacturers.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxford Incurs $807T for Cleanup at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford Residential Properties I Limited Partnership, for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007, incurred asbestos-related cleanup
expenses of about US$807,000 for one of its investment
properties, Raven Hill Apartments, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 14, 2008.
All of the asbestos related work was completed in 2007.
During June 2007, Raven Hill incurred damages as a result of a
fire. The estimates of building damages of US$2,796,000 and lost
rents of US$71,000.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company received
insurance proceeds of about US$2,087,000 to repair the damaged
units, about US$619,000 of which was held on deposit with the
mortgage lender at Dec. 31, 2007 and released to the Company
during the three months ended March 31, 2008.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company wrote off about
US$644,000 of undepreciated damaged assets, which resulted in a
casualty gain of about US$1,443,000 for the year ended Dec. 31,
2007.
During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company
recorded an additional gain of about US$699,000 as a result of
the receipt of additional insurance proceeds. In addition, the
Partnership received about US$71,000 to cover lost rents, which
was included in revenues in 2007.
Greenville, S.C.-based Oxford Residential Properties I Limited
Partnership was formed on Jan. 19, 1984 to acquire, own and
operate residential properties. The General Partners of the
Partnership are Oxford Residential Properties I Corporation and
Oxford Fund I Limited Partnership. Oxford Residential Properties
I Corporation serves as the managing general partner and Oxford
Fund I Limited Partnership serves as the Associated General
Partner.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 45 Lawsuits Pending v. Met-Pro at April 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 45 asbestos-related lawsuits were pending against
Met-Pro Corporation as of April 30, 2008, compared with 38 cases
as of Jan. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3,
2008.
Beginning in 2002, the Company and/or one of its divisions began
to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits filed predominantly in Mississippi on a mass basis by
large numbers of plaintiffs against a large number of industrial
companies including in particular those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.
More recently, the Company and/or this division have been named
as one of many pump and fluid handling defendants in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed in New York and Maryland by individual
plaintiffs, sometimes husband and wife.
To a lesser extent, the Company and/or this division have also
been named together with many other pump and fluid handling
defendants in these type of cases in other states as well.
The complaints filed against the Company and/or this division
have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that the
Company, and/or the division, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries and loss
to the plaintiffs.
The Company and/or the division have been dismissed from or
settled a number of these cases.
The sum total of all payments through April 30, 2008 to settle
these cases was US$355,000, all of which has been paid by the
Company's insurers, with an average cost per settled claim of
about US$24,000.
For the three-month period ended April 30, 2008, seven new cases
were filed against the Company and there were no dismissals or
settlements.
Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although several cases are on schedules
leading to trial.
Harleysville, Pa.-based Met-Pro Corporation's product recovery
and pollution-control segment, composed of six divisions
including Flex-Kleen and Pristine Water, makes products from
particle collectors (used in food preparation) to fans and
blowers (used in semiconductor manufacturing plants). The fluid-
handling equipment segment, composed of four divisions including
Mefiag and Keystone Filter, makes products for handling
corrosive, abrasive, and high-temperature liquids.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Graham
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to be a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in its products, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 3, 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 designs, manufactures and
sells custom-built vacuum and heat transfer equipment to
customers worldwide. Products include steam jet ejector vacuum
systems, surface condensers for steam turbines, vacuum pumps and
compressors, various types of heat exchangers, including helical
coil heat exchangers marketed under the Heliflow name, and plate
and frame exchangers.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Inc. Objects to 13 Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asarco Incorporated filed under seal more objections to 13
asbestos-related claims against ASARCO LLC and the Asbestos
Subsidiary Debtors, each asserting $1,000,000, or more.
Asarco Inc. maintains that the Claims should be expunged, or in
the alternative, reduced, for one or more of these reasons:
(a) The Claim lacks any evidence that the claimants has any
asbestos-related physical impairment, that the claimant was
exposed to any asbestos, or that the claimant was exposed to
any asbestos as a result of the operations of the Asbestos
Debtors;
(b) The Claim lacks any supporting evidence and fails to specify
any injury that the claimants have suffered;
(c) The Claims are barred by the state's statute of limitations;
(d) The Claim relies on a report by Ray A. Harron, M.D., of
Bridgeport, West Virginia, a known "banned doctor;" and
(e) The Claim was not filed by the Sept. 30, 2006 Bar Date.
ASARCO LLC, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the
Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, Robert C. Pate, as the Future
Claims Representative, and Lipitz & Ponterio LLC, the law firm
representing several asbestos claimants, ask the Court to
dismiss Asarco Inc.'s claims objections, or stay the claims
objections and prohibit Asarco Inc. from filing further claims
objections.
The Objectors concur that filing individual claim objections is
not the best avenue for resolving the asbestos claims given that
there are more than 100,000 asbestos claims filed against ASARCO
LLC. The Asbestos Committee relates that beginning October 2007,
a mediation of the asbestos claims proceeded before the
Honorable Elizabeth W. Magner, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.
The mediation, which produced an agreement-in-principle, is
ongoing and the focus has shifted to the negotiation of
consistent plan provisions. Asarco Inc. participated in the
mediation, however, it declined to enter into any agreement or
agreement-in-principle with any creditor or party-in-interest,
the Asbestos Committee tells the Court.
ASARCO LLC's counsel, David Genender, at Baker Botts L.L.P., in
Dallas, says that ASARCO LLC, the Asbestos Committee, the FCR,
Asarco Inc., as well as the Court and other interested parties,
have all expended considerable resources in the asbestos
estimation proceedings.
Mr. Genender adds that expert econometricians for both ASARCO
LLC and the asbestos claimants recognized that many individual
claims may not be eligible for compensation and provided
opinions that allowed the parties to take those claims into
account during settlement negotiations.
Mr. Genender says ASARCO LLC is confident that the parties'
extensive negotiations will result in the establishment of an
asbestos trust under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code,
which trust will address the merits of individual asbestos
claimants after confirmation of a plan of reorganization.
The Section 524(g) trust will be best positioned to evaluate
complaints like those brought by Asarco Inc., without draining
the Court's scarce resources that are better devoted to matters
that need to be addressed before confirmation, like the
estimation of hundreds of millions of dollars of environmental
claims, approval of plan sponsor bid protections, determination
of title to about a US$50 million tax refund in a pending
adversary against Asarco Inc. and matters arising in each of the
three active fraudulent transfer lawsuits to recover valuable
mining assets, Mr. Genender asserts.
Lipitz & Ponterio says that if the Court is inclined to allow
Asarco Inc. to proceed with its claims objections, Lipitz &
Ponterio asks the Court to convert the claims objections to
adversary proceedings to permit the law firm to investigate
Asarco Inc.'s contentions and take discovery.
The Asbestos Committee asserts that Asarco Inc.'s objections
"could be merely the tip of a colossal iceberg that the Parent
hopes will sink the reorganization of ASARCO" and "perhaps
overwhelm the docket of the United States District Court with
pointless and unnecessary litigation as an inevitable
consequence."
The Asbestos Committee points out that if Asarco Inc. has its
way, its claims objections will be set along a rail that will
lead to a full blown, separate trial of each of the asbestos
claims. Following this process to its logical conclusion, ASARCO
would be swamped with discovery and forced to defend itself from
100,000 pre-trial proceedings and, ultimately, 100,000 trials,
the very nightmare scenario that ASARCO sought to avoid by
seeking protection under Chapter 11.
Judge Schmidt rules that the "neutrality clause" will apply to
all insurance companies that are or may become interested
parties in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases. The neutrality clause
provides that the portion of any plan of reorganization in the
Debtors' cases and any order confirming that plan addressing the
Debtors' asbestos liabilities will not be binding on and will
not have any res judicata or collateral estoppel effect on or
against the insurance companies regarding their insurance
coverage obligations.
The neutrality clause further provides that no reorganization
plan will operate to expand the rights of any party or trust or
diminish the duties and their obligations as to rights that
exist under any policies issued by the insurance companies as of
the Petition Date; and the insurance companies' non-
participation in the negotiation of a reorganization plan will
not be held against or in favor of any entity in any pending
insurance coverage litigation concerning the Debtors' asbestos
liabilities.
Judge Schmidt, however, rules that the neutrality clause does
not apply to Mt. McKinley Insurance Company or Everest
Reinsurance Company.
(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 73; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Ministry Surveys Indirect Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to a Japanese Environment Ministry Survey, about 18
percent, or 145, of about 800 people living near factories
handling asbestos show signs of pleural plaque, although they
had never worked at the factories, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.
The Ministry conducted the survey in 2007 in six areas -
Yokohama, Hashima in Gifu Prefecture, Nara Prefecture, Osaka
Prefecture, Amagasaki in Hyogo Prefecture, and Tosu in Saga
Prefecture - all places that hosted factories that handled
asbestos, including construction material makers.
On June 4, 2008, the Ministry reported the findings at a meeting
of health experts. The Ministry believes asbestos at the
factories affected local residents' health mainly through the
atmosphere, even though they had not been directly exposed to
the substance.
According to the Ministry, 1,814 people who said they "might
have inhaled asbestos in the past," voluntarily participated in
the survey. Computer tomography scans and chest X-ray
examinations were conducted on them, and they were asked about
their health.
Of the 1,814, the Ministry analyzed the data of 804 people who
had never worked at the factories or who had not lived with
anyone who had, and were presumed to have inhaled asbestos
through the air.
The result showed that the number of people diagnosed with
pleural plaque, which constitutes clear evidence that the person
had inhaled asbestos, totaled 145--41 in Hashima, 37 in Nara
Prefecture, 32 in Amagasaki, 20 in Osaka Prefecture, 12 in
Yokohama and three in Tosu, the survey found.
Meanwhile, "lung fiber" and other signs possibly related to
asbestos exposure, were discovered in 509 people, or 60 percent
of the 804 people whose data were scrutinized.
In fiscal 2006, the Ministry conducted a similar survey in
Amagasaki, Tosu, and in Osaka Prefecture, finding pleural plaque
in 29 people.
Through the surveys, the Ministry confirmed that the mortality
rate of people with mesothelial tumors caused by asbestos was
particularly high in an area of Amagasaki where one of Kubota
Corp.'s factories had been located.
The Ministry still plans to collect more data about asbestos-
related health problems.
However, Sugio Furuya, secretary general at the Tokyo-based
Japan Occupational Safety and Health Resource Center, urged the
government to act now and respond quickly to the problem.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links 86-Year-Old's Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Halifax Coroner's Court heard that the death of
86-year-old Mary Jessop was linked to asbestos, Evening Courier
reports.
The inquest heard that Mrs. Jessop was killed by an asbestos-
related cancer despite never knowingly coming into contact with
the killer dust.
Mrs. Jessop was living at Overgate Hospice, Elland, England,
when she died on Dec. 1, 2007. She was diagnosed with
mesothelioma earlier in 2007 and died from bronchial pneumonia
linked to the disease.
However, Halifax Coroner's Court was told neither Mrs. Jessop
nor any of her family worked with asbestos. She was a mender and
then worked on the production line at Mackintosh's Sweet
Factory, Halifax.
Coroner James Turnbull recorded a verdict of misadventure. He
said, "Where she came into contact with asbestos is a mystery."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Beach Season Starts Amid Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
The start of the 2008 beach season along Lake Michigan has
prompted a local conservation group to issue advice on how
beachgoers can minimize inhalation and ingestion of toxic
asbestos fibers, considering the Illinois shoreline has a
history of asbestos contamination, according to a PRWeb press
release dated June 4, 2008.
Located in Waukegan, Ill., the Johns-Manville Asbestos Superfund
Site is home to one million tons of asbestos waste. The 150-acre
site was used as an asbestos disposal area and harbors about
three million cubic yards of off-specification materials and
wastewater sludge.
Bordered by Lake Michigan and Illinois Beach State Park, water
contaminated with asbestos fibers is periodically released from
this site into the lake. Currents transport the fibers
southward, which wash up along beaches stretching as far south
as Chicago's Oak Street Beach.
According to tests performed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in 2002, water released from the site
contaminates the lake with millions of asbestos fibers per liter
of water. Dredging operations located immediately offshore has
compounded the problem by disturbing settled asbestos in the
lake's sediment.
The disturbed fibers break free of the sediment and are
subsequently washed ashore. Some of this dredged sediment was
even used by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to
replenish sand lost due to beach erosion at Illinois Beach State
Park.
A major concern is the fact that much of the asbestos
contamination is tremolite asbestos, which is considered to be
several hundred times more hazardous to human health than
asbestos fibers commonly found in urban settings. Exposure to
tremolite asbestos has been strongly linked to the development
of Mesothelioma cancer.
Public officials have claimed the present levels of asbestos are
not a threat to public health, but Jeffery Camplin, an
environmental/health safety engineer and nationally known
asbestos expert, refutes these claims.
Requested by the Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society to
review studies performed by the EPA, the federal Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), as well as a
contractor hired by the Chicago Park District, Mr. Camplin found
the studies were "deeply flawed and severely lacking in
standardized scientific protocols."
In an effort to help prevent future cases of mesothelioma and
other asbestos-related diseases, the Illinois Dunesland
Preservation Society is offering tips to beachgoers to minimize
the inhalation and ingestion of potentially deadly asbestos
fibers.
The society advises against eating and drinking at contaminated
beaches, as well as disturbing the sand in any way. Visitors of
the affected beaches are also recommended to rigorously shower
and clean belongings before leaving, as asbestos fibers can be
found anywhere beach sand reaches.
The society also warns against certain cleaning methods, such as
shaking off towels or dusting shoes off, which can release
asbestos fibers into the air.
Concerned beachgoers are likely wondering what, if any,
activities are free from the risk of exposure to asbestos at
Lake Michigan's beaches.
According to Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society President
Paul Kakuris, "Waves wash fibers onto the beaches where sand
releases asbestos during beach activities, exposing millions of
unwitting victims to deadly asbestos fibers while corrupt public
officials and polluters' consultants rigged studies, using
government funds."
Naturally, the society strongly advises against anyone visiting
Lake Michigan's contaminated beaches.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AAPEX, Owner Fined for CAA, CWA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
AAPEX Environmental Services Inc. and its owner, 50-year-old
John Leathly, on June 3, 2008, admitted to illegally stripping,
bagging, removing, transporting and disposing of asbestos in the
past 12 years, an Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Benedict said,
The Post-Standard reports.
The Clay, N.Y.-based AAPEX and Mr. Leathly, of Manlius, N.Y.,
each pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the Clean Water Act
and Clean Air Act.
Under the plea agreement, Mr. Leathly faces up to five years in
prison and a US$250,000 fine. AAPEX is forbidden from ever re-
applying for asbestos-related licenses, Mr. Benedict said.
Prosecutors are not sure how many buildings AAPEX ripped off
because the Company did not keep proper records. Sometimes, it
was no more complicated than opening the door and seeing
asbestos on the first step in, Mr. Benedict said.
An AAPEX supervisor pleaded guilty to improperly disposing of
asbestos in March 2007 from the former Agway building in DeWitt.
Everett Blatche, of Syracuse, N.Y. is helping investigators and
has not yet been sentenced, Mr. Benedict said.
AAPEX also paid off an air monitoring company to provide false
laboratory analysis to mislead clients and regulators,
prosecutors said. Company officials hid asbestos activities from
its insurance company to get lower rates.
Mr. Leathly also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail
fraud. The Company admitted to mail fraud.
The Company must pay a US$166,700 fine. Sentencing will be held
on Oct. 7, 2008.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cinter to Pay $60,000 for Landfill Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Williamsburg, Va.-based Cinter Construction Company, Inc. will
have to pay a landfill in Suffolk, Va., US$60,000, which is the
price difference between clean and asbestos-contaminated waste,
Daily Press reports.
John Holland, the owner of the landfill, made the statement.
Mr. Holland charges for asbestos-laden debris about US$60 per
ton while regular debris cost only about US$130 per truckload.
Debris from the new US$14 million Navy housing construction site
on 31st Street and Washington Avenue in downtown Newport News,
Va., which Cinter dumped at the landfill claiming it was regular
soil fill, contained asbestos, state officials confirmed.
However, Department of Environmental Quality officials, who took
18 samples of the about 20 truck loads dumped several weeks ago,
will most likely not fine the contractor, Cinter, said Milt
Johnston, waste compliance manager with the state DEQ.
Cinter mischaracterized and did not correctly identify the
debris, Mr. Johnston said.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Local 480 Seeks Charges v. Canadian Gov't.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Local 480, the union representing guards at the Cape Breton
Correctional Facility at Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada, wants
charges to be laid against provincial government officials for
withholding information about asbestos in the building,
CBCNews.ca reports.
Jim Gosse, president of Local 480 with the Nova Scotia
Government and General Employees Union, said guards only learned
about the asbestos in May 2008, while officials knew about it
for at least 20 years.
Mr. Gosse said on June 2, 2008, "Here we have an employer who
not only snubbed their nose at the occupational health and
safety legislation in this province, but they also failed to
abide by the asbestos legislation that's out there for safe
removal for the handling of asbestos products in Nova Scotia.
"And the employer kept that information from staff. They failed
to notify supervisory staff as well as front-line managers
within the correctional facility."
Mr. Gosse said it is a similar situation to what happened after
asbestos was found in some public housing units in Cape Breton
two years ago. The result in that case, he said, was that three
people who work with the Cape Breton Housing Authority and the
Department of Community Services were charged under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act earlier this spring.
Mr. Gosse added, "And what's most interesting, we have the same
deputy minister who was responsible for community services at
the time — Marion Tyson, who is now also the deputy minister
responsible for justice and in particular correctional
services."
Mr. Gosse said a lot of construction work was done at the jail,
located in Sydney, over the past 10 years, putting his members
at increased risk of exposure.
The asbestos has been removed from living spaces in the
correctional center, Mr. Gosse said, and the union is happy with
how that work was carried out. But some remediation work still
needs to be done in the building's boiler room, he said.
In May 2008, Justice Minister Cecil Clarke said tests conducted
at the jail, which houses 76 inmates, showed the air is safe.
The tests were carried out after several guards staged a walkout
claiming their health was at risk.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $250M Reimbursement for Mont. Cleanup OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald, on June 2, 2008,
approved an agreement for W. R. Grace & Co. to reimburse the
federal government US$250 million for the investigation and
cleanup of asbestos contamination in Libby, Mont., Associated
Press reports.
The Company agreed to the amount in March 2008 to settle a
bankruptcy claim brought by the government to recover money for
the past and future cleanup of contaminated schools, homes and
businesses in Libby. The contamination has been blamed for
sickening hundreds of people, some of whom have died.
According to the order signed by Judge Fitzgerald during a
hearing in Pittsburgh, Grace must pay the amount within 30 days.
The settlement would be the largest-ever reimbursement through
the government's Superfund program, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Justice Department have said.
James D. Freeman, a Justice Department attorney, said the
settlement was a "substantial compromise" for the government,
but the prompt payment would allow the cleanup to continue
without budgetary concerns.
Taxpayers have been footing the bill for EPA's investigative
work and cleanup in Libby, which began in 1999. An EPA official
in Libby said in March that expenses totaled US$168 million and
another US$175 million in costs were likely.
The asbestos came from vermiculite mine and processing
facilities a few miles from the town in northwestern Montana.
The facilities were owned and operated by Grace from 1963 until
the site's closure in 1990.
Asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore were shipped from the mine
near Libby to about 270 processing plants across the United
States for use in insulation, fireproofing, gardening and other
products.
The EPA has said the remaining cleanup work in Libby is likely
to take three to five years.
Grace sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April 2001
because of lawsuits over asbestos.
In 2001, the government filed a lawsuit to recover costs. Two
years later, the EPA won a US$54 million judgment for cleanup
costs incurred through Dec. 31, 2001. However, that amount went
unpaid amid Grace's bankruptcy proceedings. The settlement
announced in March included the 2003 judgment.
In April 2008, Grace reached an agreement to resolve current and
future asbestos claims in a deal valued by plaintiffs' attorneys
at US$3 billion in cash and equity.
Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses on a worldwide basis through two operating segments:
"Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and
materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial,
packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace
Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and
materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential
construction.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vedanta Resources Subsidiary to Buy Asarco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., a subsidiary of Vedanta
Resources plc, agreed to buy the assets of copper mining firm
Asarco LLC, in a bankruptcy court auction for US$2.6 billion
cash, the companies said on June 1, 2008, MarketWatch reports.
Asarco LLC filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11
of U.S. bankruptcy law in August 2005. The Company's
restructuring-information Website says that in April 2005, five
subsidiaries had made similar filings "as a result of massive
asbestos litigation filed against them."
While two of the units had not been producing asbestos or
products containing asbestos for some years, "by the late 1990s,
[they] had been named in thousands of asbestos lawsuits around
the country," the site says.
If the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex., approves
the deal, Asarco, founded in 1899 as American Smelting &
Refining Co., will emerge from Chapter 11, the companies said.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Asarco's former parent,
Grupo Mexico, plans to challenge the sale to Sterlite. Grupo
Mexico had bought Asarco in 1999, then lost control in the
bankruptcy proceedings.
The Journal reported, citing Thomson Reuters statistics, that
the deal would be further evidence of how merger activity is
rising in emerging-market countries like India and Brazil.
Asarco produced 235,000 tons of refined copper in 2007, and its
mines have reserves currently estimated at five million tons of
copper. For 2007, Asarco reported revenue of US$1.9 billion.
Using debt and cash on hand, Sterlite is buying three open-pit
copper mines and a smelter in Arizona and a refinery, rod-and-
cake plant and precious-metals plant in Texas.
The companies' statement said, "Sterlite will assume operating
liabilities but not legacy liabilities for asbestos and
environmental claims for ceased operations."
The restructuring Website said that by making the Chapter 11
filings, the Company expected to "channel all asbestos-related
claims against the debtors to a trust."
Sterlite said it would build value for holders by increasing
efficiency at Asarco's mines and plants. The deal geographically
diversifies its North American presence and provides "attractive
mining assets with long life," the statement said.
Lehman Brothers advised Asarco and Royal Bank of Scotland's ABN
Amro Corporate Finance advised Sterlite on the deal.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: O'Farrell Family Pursues High Court Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Charles Michael O'Farrell, of Speke, Liverpool,
England, is at the center of a High Court battle to protect the
legal rights of thousands of asbestos victims, Liverpool Echo
reports.
Mr. O'Farrell died in October 2003 at the age of 81, two months
after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. His daughter Maureen
Edwards is pursuing the claim on behalf of the family.
Mrs. Edwards' claim is backed by Unite – the Union, of which Mr.
O'Farrell was a member. The family is being supported by
Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group.
Mr. O'Farrell was exposed to asbestos while working for
Humphreys & Glasgow Limited at Bootle's Linacre gasworks where
he was a steel erector from 1964 to 1967. The pensioner said he
was not told asbestos was dangerous.
The O'Farrell family was awarded GBP152,000 compensation against
Humphreys & Glasgow Limited by the county court in 2007. Excess
Insurance Company Ltd insured now-defunct Humphreys & Glasgow at
the time Mr. O'Farrell worked for the company.
However, Excess Insurance is now refusing to pay up before the
courts have ruled on the legal issues.
In the past, insurers met the majority of asbestos compensation
claims. But they are now citing a court of appeal ruling won two
years ago which argued the "trigger" was pulled when the disease
develops, and not at the time of exposure to asbestos.
The nine-week test case hearing is aimed at settling a fierce
legal debate over the point in time when insurers' liability is
"triggered."
Thousands of families of workers who have already died and
others who may contract the disease in the future are awaiting
the outcome of the case, which may go all the way to the House
of Lords before it is finally decided.
The 52-year-old Mrs. Edwards said, "Mesothelioma is such a
dreadful disease. It is important to us that we win this test
case, not just for our family, but for all the other families
now and in the future who will be devastated by this awful
disease."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Loftis to Pay $37,500 for Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Loftis, a Charleston, W.Va.-based contractor and owner of
Randy Loftis & Son Contracting Inc., received two years
probation and has been ordered to pay US$37,000 in restitution
to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
after Mr. Loftis was charged with illegally disposing asbestos,
TransWorldNews reports.
The sentence was levied upon Mr. Loftis in a West Virginia court
on June 2, 2008.
The sentencing judge indicated that Mr. Loftis' acts were
"serious" but did not warrant incarceration. Under existing
environment contamination laws, the judge could have imposed
upon Mr. Loftis up to four years in state prison.
Mr. Loftis was accused of disposing of asbestos illegally in
2004 and again in 2006 on the same property where he was
working. He also violated two stop and desist orders after
criminal complaints were issued in 2007.
Mr. Loftis was required to provide proof in court that he had
properly disposed of the asbestos-containing materials, but West
Virginia DEP reports claimed that Mr. Loftis had repeatedly
transported asbestos from several different job sites, including
sites in neighboring counties, to illegal dumping locations.
While in court on June 2, 2008, Mr. Loftis apologized for his
actions. In addition to the fine that Mr. Loftis must surrender
to the West Virginia DEP and the two years he must spend on
probation, Mr. Loftis must also fulfill community service hours
and may be ordered to undergo counseling.
The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center encourages
stiffer penalties in further asbestos dumping cases to prevent
unsafe exposures.
These practices endanger not only contractors like Mr. Loftis,
but also those in the vicinity of a dumping location.
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Leah R.
Felisilda, Stephanie Tolentino-Umacob, Freya Natasha F. Dy, and
Peter A. Chapman, 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 * * *