/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080613.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 13, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 117 Headlines AMERICAN FIDELITY: Cheated Policyholders, Kansas Suit Alleges CLARK COUNTY: Judge Rejects Argument in Child Welfare Lawsuit CONNECTICUT: Court Says State Failed to Help Retarded Residents DAIMLER CHRYSLER: Sued for Losing Confidential Client Data DEAN FOODS: MDL Panel Consolidates Antitrust Suits in Tennessee DUANE READE: Still Faces "Damassia" Labor Litigation in N.Y. DUANE READE: Continues to Face "Chowdhury" Labor Lawsuit in N.Y. DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Wants Arbitration in "Skirchak" Dismissed ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Calif. Antitrust Suit Over NFL Video Game EUROPEAN MINERALS: Siskinds LLP Commences $55-Million Lawsuit FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Faces Six Massachusetts Securities Fraud Suits GANZ INC: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Antitrust Tying Arrangements HEELYS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas LEHMAN BROTHERS: June 30 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline MACK CRAWFORD: Metro Conflict Defender's Closure Challenged MEDQUIST: South Broward Lawsuit Settled; Dismissed by N.J. Court NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Auto Policyholders' Suit in W.Va. Certified NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit NVE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Minn. Securities Suit ONTARIO LOTTERY: Couple Files CDN$3.5BB Problem Gambling Lawsuit PB LITIGATION: Suit Settlement Provides for Plumbing Replacement PEPSICO INC: No Berries in Crunch Berries, Calif. Suit Claims PMI GROUP: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California QUANTA CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Suits ROYAL BANK: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Fixed SHOCKLEY FINANCIAL: Faces Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Suits SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I" SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case VONAGE HOLDINGS: Court Still to Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits VONAGE HOLDINGS: Seeks Nixing of Amended Complaint in IPO Suit WACHOVIA BANK: Spector Roseman Files ERISA Lawsuit in New York WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Multi-District Litigation in Washington WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wants California Suit Over Home Loans Nixed WASHINGTON MUTUAL: N.Y. Court Mulls $336MM Antitrust Settlement New Securities Fraud Cases FRANKLIN BANK: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Lawsuit in Texas HEALTHWAYS INC: Howard Smith Files Tennessee Securities Suit INDYMAC BANCORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit LEHMAN BROTHERS: Holzer & Fistel Files Illinois Securities Suit NEXCEN BRANDS: Charles Johnson Files Securities Suit in N.Y. TOMOTHERAPY INC: Roy Jacobs Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Mills Action v. Lexington Jail ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Denied in Westchester Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Ingwersen in Imo Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Weiss Suit Filed v. 48 Firms in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO, Groups Form Committee to Ban Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 40% Don't Know Exposure Source- Japan Study ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Sprayer's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Govt to Begin Talks on Rights of Victims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4th District Court Urged to Review Decision ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Find Delays Demolition of Days Inn ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Favors Defendants in Reiter Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Defendants in Jacobs ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors U.S. Steel in Gomcsak Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Class Bid for Hospital Suit v. Grace Denied ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Responds to Bar Date Objection ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov't. Opposes Court Review of Grace Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Locals Want Apology From Electric Co ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA & EPA Urged to Improve Info Dispersal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railton Owners Predict Increase in Diseases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lower Hutt, N.Z. Railway Station to Reopen ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brent Coon Reaches 14 Settlements in Texas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2,000 Pupils Evacuated from Belfast Schools ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Heater Exposure Linked to Clerk's Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labour Councilors Slam Wear Valley Probe ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Pattullo Bridge in Canada ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Montreal School Board to Eliminate Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Map Shows Portions of Australia w/ Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Widow in Coman Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Weyerhaeuser Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Affirms Board Ruling in Carl Wilson Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CEAC Still to Pay $300T for French Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Check Air After Parkersburg Tornado ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't Expands Relief Law for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Ongoing at Kennedy Space Center ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oak St Beach Visitors Urged to Have Checkup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Potential Owners Asked to Inspect Homes ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crews Exposed at Demolition Site in Colo. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bernie Banton's Widow Starts Research Group ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Claimants Await Trust Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Parliament Criticizes Insurance Industry ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J.C. Penney Expects Cleanup to Cost $45MM ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HHS & EPA to Launch $8M Libby Health Study ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deem Sues A.W. Chesterton, et al. in Texas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Local Sues 12 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Men Charged for Disposal Breaches in U.K. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement Done at Clay County, Fla. School ********* AMERICAN FIDELITY: Cheated Policyholders, Kansas Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- American Fidelity Assurance is facing a class-action complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas alleging it cheats policyholders by promising, but refusing, to pay actual charges of cancer treatments, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs bring this civil action pursuant to Rule 23 of the the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all policyholders, estates, covered persons or beneficiaries who: (i) were insured insured under a limited benefit specified disease cancer expense policy owned, sold, issued, underwritten and administered by AFA and denominated either form nos. C-3, C-4, C-489, C-5, C-6, C-7 or C-8; (ii) made a claim for policy benefits payable in the amount of the "actual charges" of covered healthcare goods, services and treatments which AFA ultimately adjusted and approved; (iii) received payment from AFA on said claim in an amount less than the "actual charges" of the covered healthcare goods, services and treatments. The plaintiffs say they bought cancer expense policies from American Fidelity. At all times, the plaintiffs say, they interpreted the term actual charges to mean "actual charges. However, in 1994, a few years after the plaintiffs purchased the policy, AFA secretly, fraudulently and unlawfully changed its interpretation of 'actual charges' to mean 70% of the amount of a provider's bill or invoice for covered treatment and secretly began paying 'actual charges' benefits in accordance with that new interpretation without its insureds' knowledge or consent, the complaint states. The plaintiffs further claim that American Fidelity "knowingly, intentionally, fraudulently and in bad faith underpaid the decedent's and plaintiff's claims for benefits under the policy." The plaintiffs want the court to rule on whether: (a) AFA can legally coordinate, discount or otherwise reduce policy benefits payable in the amount of actual charges by coordinating and otherwise taking advantage of other insurance coverage that they and the members of the proposed class independently bargained for and received by and through other insurance providers and plans; and (b) AFA is in breach of its contracted obligations to them and the members of the proposed class and its duty to treat them with the utmost good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- compensatory damages against the defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, including but not limited to, unpaid benefits and contractual interest on benefits owed; -- punitive damages; -- prejudgment and post judgment interest; -- costs, including but not limited to court costs, expert fees, attorney's fees and expenses; and -- such other and further relief as the court deems appropriate under the circumstances presented. The suit is "Verle M. Vallier, et al. v. American Fidelity Assurance Co., Case No. 08-CV-2267 JAR/GLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Representing the plaintiffs are: Matthew T. Geiger, Esq. (mgeiger@ggbtrial.com) Walter M. Brown, Esq. (wbrown@ggbtrial.com) Gaddy Geiger & Brown PC 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 675 Kansas City, Missouri 64108 Phone: 816-221-8989 Fax: 816-221-8988 CLARK COUNTY: Judge Rejects Argument in Child Welfare Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court ruled that a lawsuit facing Clark County's child welfare system will not become a class action, Las Vegas Now reports. According to the report, a judge rejected the argument that all children in the county's care were at risk. The judge, although acknowledging that the children named in the lawsuit may have suffered as wards of the county, he did not accept the argument those 10 cases were representative of all of the children in foster care which is 4,000 or so. Las Vegas Now recounts that attorneys for The National Center For Youth Law, a California-based child advocacy system, had argued that all foster kids in Clark County are at risk of abuse or neglect because of system-wide failures. They noted two former managers with the State Department of Child and Family Services offered evidence to support that position. The judge, however, insisted that there was not enough statistical information to support a class action, the report notes. "You lose a battle but we haven't lost the war, and these kids, the 4,000 kids in foster care, deserve our commitment to them. We made a commitment to them, and we're going to follow through until they get the relief they're entitled to," Bill Grimm of the NCYL told Las Vegas Now. The report says that the judge did order Clark County to turn over the records related to more than 1,000 abuse allegations against licensed caregivers -- foster parents among them. The county, however, argued that doing so would violate state privacy laws. The NCYL said it believes those records will provide additional evidence of abuse. The group said that if that is the case, it may again ask the court to proceed with a class action, but if not, it will move forward on behalf of the children already included in the lawsuit. Las Vegas Now says Clark County declined to comment because of the on-going litigation. CONNECTICUT: Court Says State Failed to Help Retarded Residents --------------------------------------------------------------- Senior U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Bree Burns has determined that Connecticut has not done enough to help the mentally retarded residents at Southbury Training School relocate into the community, according to Newsday. The report notes that Judge Burns, in a decision filed last week, said that the state has failed to adequately evaluate residents for placement and later move them into the community if they were able to live outside the facility. A hearing will be scheduled to determine how to remedy the situation, Newsday adds. The report says that Judge Burns' 113-page decision stems from a class action lawsuit that went to trial in 1999. Newsday cites Lynn Warner, executive director of The Arc of Connecticut, as calling the decision "a momentous occasion and a clear validation of the rights of people with intellectual disabilities." Newsday points out that currently, 499 people live at Southbury, with an average age of 60. Admissions were halted by court order in 1986 after lawsuits involving the Justice Department over care and conditions for the residents. The General Assembly passed a law that year which also barred the school from taking new residents, as it moved toward the use of smaller group homes. Judge Burns also ruled that allegations of poor conditions, services and programs are moot because a separate federal lawsuit settled those matters. The judge found in 2006 that the state had met all 94 requirements of a consent decree requiring improvements at Southbury. Newsday relates that in a written statement, the Department of Developmental Services, formerly the Department of Mental Retardation, acknowledged the court found that "certain aspects of decision-making regarding recommendations for 'community placement' for (Southbury) residents did not fully comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act." DDS said the court also recognized that the state is not required to move Southbury residents to community settings if the transfer is opposed by the residents or their legal guardians, which has been the case in some situations. "DSS, as always, remains committed to the quality supports and services established at STS and continues to honor the choices of residents, families and guardians about where they wish to reside," the report notes the statement as saying. DAIMLER CHRYSLER: Sued for Losing Confidential Client Data ---------------------------------------------------------- A proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in Regina alleging Daimler Chrysler Financial Services and several affiliated companies are responsible for losing confidential client data, Canwest News Service reports. According to Canwest, the suit was filed on June 10, 2008, at Court of Queen's Bench. It was brought on behalf of four named individuals from Saskatoon, Montreal, Winnipeg and Edmonton, as well as "all individuals in Saskatchewan, Canada and elsewhere whose personal information was transferred to the defendants and has been lost by the defendants." The suit further alleges that a "data tape" containing confidential client information was "lost in transit" between January and May 2008, but that customers were not notified for several weeks, Canwest relates. Specifically, the named defendants are Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Canada Inc., Chrysler Canada Inc., Daimler Chrysler Services Canada Inc., Daimler Canada Finance Inc., Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC, Chrysler LLC, Cerberus Capital Management LP, United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and United Parcel Service of America. The report notes that the Merchant Law Group claim alleges negligence for the manner in which the information was transferred or stored. According to the claim, Daimler customers received a letter notifying them that their confidential information could be at risk due to the loss of a data tape being delivered by UPS to an unnamed third party. Canwest explains that "confidential information" is defined to include names, addresses, dates of birth, and financial information. The suit contends that the plaintiffs have suffered "severe and significant emotional distress and trauma, and economic loss or damage," adding they worry about identity theft. DEAN FOODS: MDL Panel Consolidates Antitrust Suits in Tennessee --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of all pending cases that allege that Dean Foods Co. and others in the milk industry worked together to limit the price the Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities. The antitrust suits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee The company was named, among several defendants, in two purported class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007. The complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. A third purported class action complaint was filed on Aug. 9, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The third complaint was amended on March 28, 2008. The amended complaint alleges generally that the company, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and that the defendants' conduct also artificially inflated retail prices for direct milk purchasers. Four additional similar purported class-action complaints were filed in August, October and November 2007, and in February 2008 before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The allegations in these complaints are similar to those in the first and second complaints. Motions to dismiss each of these lawsuits are currently pending before the Court. On Jan. 7, 2008, the U.S. MDL Panel ordered the consolidation of all of the pending cases in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, 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. Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and beverage company. The Company has two segments: the Dairy Group and WhiteWave Foods Company. The Dairy Group manufactures and sells its products under a variety of local and regional brand names and under private labels. Its WhiteWave Foods Co. develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of nationally branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel�s Organic dairy products. DUANE READE: Still Faces "Damassia" Labor Litigation in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Duane Reade, Inc., continues to face the purported class action lawsuit "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc.," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that from the period beginning November 1998, the company incorrectly gave some employees the title, "assistant manager," in an attempt to avoid paying these employees overtime, in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Law. The suit seeks an award equal to twice an unspecified amount of unpaid wages. The company reported no development in the case in its May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2008. The suit is "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv- 08819-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Gerard E. Lynch, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Tarik Fouad Ajami, Esq. (tfa@outtengolden.com) Adam T. Klein, Esq. (atk@outtengolden.com) Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. (jms@outtengolden.com) Outten & Golden, LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-245-1000 Fax: 212-977-4005 Representing the defendants are: Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Esq. (ghathaway@littler.com) Lisa A. Schreter, Esq. (lschreter@littler.com) Littler Mendelson, P.C. Phone: 212-583-2684 404-233-0330 Fax: 212-832-2719 404-233-2361 DUANE READE: Continues to Face "Chowdhury" Labor Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duane Reade, Inc., is still facing a purported class action lawsuit entitled, "Enamul Chowdhury v. Duane Reade Inc. and Duane Reade Holdings, Inc.," which is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was filed on March 24, 2006. The company was served with the purported class action complaint on April 2006. The suit alleges that beginning March 2000, the company incorrectly classified certain employees in an attempt to avoid paying them overtime, thereby violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The company reported no development in the case at its May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2008. The suit is "Chowdhury v. Duane Reade, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02295-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Seth Richard Lesser, Esq. (slesser@lockslawny.com) Locks Law Firm, PLLC 110 East 55th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-838-3333 Fax: 212-838-3735 Representing the defendants is: Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Esq. (ghathaway@littler.com) Frances Mollie Nicastro, Esq. (fnicastro@littler.com) Littler Mendelson, P.C. 885 Third Avenue 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-583-2684 212-583-2688 Fax: 212-832-2719 DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Wants Arbitration in "Skirchak" Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ An arbitrator in a dispute between Dynamics Research Corp. and the plaintiffs in the matter, "Skirchak et al. v. Dynamics Research Corporation, Case No. 1:05-cv-11362-MEL," has yet to rule on a motion by the company seeking the dismissal of the arbitration proceeding, 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 was filed against the company on June 28, 2005, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It was characterized as a class action employee suit, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain provisions of Massachusetts General Laws. On April 10, 2006, the Court entered an order granting in part the company's motion to dismiss the civil action and to compel compliance with its mandatory dispute resolution program, directing that the parties arbitrate the aforementioned claims, and striking the class action waiver which was part of the dispute resolution program. Following the Court's decision, the plaintiffs commenced an arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, asserting the same claims as they asserted in the District Court. An arbitrator has been selected, but no substantive action has occurred in the arbitration. On Jan. 26, 2007, the company filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the portion of the District Court's decision that the class action waiver is not enforceable. The U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 19, 2007, concurred with the District Court's opinion that the matter should proceed in arbitration and remanded the matter to the District Court. The parties have informed the District Court that they will proceed in arbitration as a class action. In the arbitration, the company has filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding and a request for summary disposition, asserting that the company is entitled to use the "window of correction" provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act's regulations and that the arbitration should be dismissed without further action in the arbitration. The motion is pending before the arbitrator, 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, "Skirchak et al. v. Dynamics Research Corporation, Case No. 1:05-cv-11362-MEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Morris E. Lasker, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Elayne N. Alanis, Esq. (ealanislaw@verizon.net) 3rd Floor, 10 Tremont St. Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-263-1203 Fax: 617-723-4729 Representing the defendants is: Carrie J. Campion, Esq. (ccampion@nixonpeabody.com) Jeffrey B. Gilbreth, Esq. (jgilbreth@nixonpeabody.com) David S. Rosenthal, Esq. (drosenthal@nixonpeabody.com) Nixon Peabody, LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-345-1045 617-345-1000 617-345-6183 Fax: 866-812-2847 ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Calif. Antitrust Suit Over NFL Video Game ---------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging it has driven competing makers of video football games out of business by illegal, exclusive arrangements with the National Football League, the NFL Players Union, the Arena Football League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs sued only Electronic Arts, which makes the Madden NFL, NCAA Football and Arena Football games. They did not sue the athletics leagues. The plaintiffs claim that the illegal, exclusive agreements allowed Electronic Arts to hike the price for its flagship "Madden NFL" game from $29.95 to $49.99. The complaint states Electronic Arts has driven its competition out of the market for interactive football software, including most significantly Take Two Interactive Software Inc., the maker of the interactive football software title NFL 2K5 and has prevented additional competitors from entering the market. As a direct result of this anticompetitive conduct, the price of interactive football software has soared: Prior to signing exclusive agreements referred to above, Electronic Arts charged $29.95 for its flagship product Madden NFL. Immediately after the exclusive agreements entered into effect -- and the effective withdrawal of its only competitor from the market -- Electronic Arts increased its price for that software nearly 70%, to $49.99. The plaintiffs sue pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or licensed from Electronic Arts a copy of interactive football software with a release date of August 2005 or later. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether interactive football software constitutes a relevant market; (b) whether the defendant has a monopoly on the market of interactive football software; (c) whether the defendant gained this monopoly unlawfully; (d) whether the defendant's actions in entering the exclusive agreements alleged violated California law; (e) whether consumers and class members have been damaged by the defendant's conduct; (f) whether punitive damages are appropriate; (g) whether the defendant should disgorge unlawful profits; and (h) the amount of any damages. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- certification of the action as a class action pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Rules of Court, and appointment of plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel of record as class counsel; -- restitution or damages to class members for the purchase of the software; -- actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages, and such other relief as provided by the statutes cited in the complaint; -- prejudgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief; -- equitable relief in the form of restitution or disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received by defendant as a result of the anticompetitive conduct alleged in the complaint; -- other appropriate injunctive relief; -- the costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees; -- a declaration that the relevant agreements are null and void; and -- all other relief to which plaintiffs and members of the class may be entitled at law or in equity. The suit is "Geoffrey Pecover, et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. C08-02820," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Shane E. Scarlett, Esq. (shanas@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: 510-725-3000 Fax: 510-725-3001 Stuart M. Paynter, Esq. (stuart@smplegal.com) The Paynter Law Firm PLLC 1200 G Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-626-4486 Fax: 866-734-0622 - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 EUROPEAN MINERALS: Siskinds LLP Commences $55-Million Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Siskinds LLP has filed a $55-million class action lawsuit against European Minerals Corporation. Also named as defendants are certain of EPM's senior officers. The class action complaint arises out of EPM's March 31, 2008 press release disclosing, among other things, that EPM was reviewing its accounting for derivative financial instruments, and that the review would result in the restatement of previous quarters' financial statements. The suit is brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of EPM in the period between May 16, 2007, to March 31, 2008. Michael Robb, Esq., a lawyer in the class actions department of Siskinds LLP, said, "Investors are entitled to expect that the financial statements of public companies are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and fairly and accurately reflect the financial condition and performance of the companies in which they invest their savings. That expectation is critical to the proper functioning of our capital markets, and when that expectation is frustrated, meaningful action must be taken to protect the rights of investors." The EPM class action is believed to be the seventh class action filed under Ontario's new investor protection legislation -- Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act. For more information, contact: Nicole Young Siskinds LLP 680 Waterloo Street London, Ontario N6A3V8 Canada Phone: 800-461-6166 (Ext. 2380) FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Faces Six Massachusetts Securities Fraud Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The First Marblehead Corp. is facing six purported securities fraud class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 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. In April 2008, six purported class action complaints were filed against the company, certain of its current and former officers, and certain of its directors. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in various U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, press releases and other public statements. The complaints allege various claims under the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. They seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The First Marblehead Corp. -- http://www.firstmarblehead.com/-- provides outsourcing services for private education lending in the U.S. It meets the demand for private education loans by providing national and regional financial institutions and educational institutions, as well as businesses, education loan marketers and other enterprises, with an integrated suite of design, implementation and securitization services for student loan programs. The Company is engaged on loan programs for undergraduate, graduate and professional education, and on the primary and secondary school market. The Company is engaged in program design and marketing coordination, borrower inquiry and application, loan origination and disbursement, loan securitization and loan servicing. GANZ INC: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Antitrust Tying Arrangements ------------------------------------------------------------- Ganz Inc. and Ganz USA LLC are facing a class action complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accusing them of abusing their market power in "Webkinz" toys, which come with codes that let kids play online games featuring their toy, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Nuts For Candy, a sole proprietorship in Burlingame, says it ordered the $1,000+ in non-Webkinz products so it could buy the Webkinz, or Webkinzes. A Webkinz is a stuffed animal that costs $10 to $15 and "comes with a code that allows the user to unlock a Web site that offers online games and other activities." Nuts for Candy claims Ganz refuses to sell the toys to retailers unless they buy at least $1,000 of other Ganz products that have nothing to do with the Webinkz toys that the kids and the retailers want. "Webkinz is a toy and an online game at the same time," the federal complaint states. The complaint states, "The main attraction of the Webkinz Web site is the games. Once on the Webkinz site, the user takes care of a virtual pet by earning points from playing games. The user cashes in their points to buy food, houses, and other items for their virtual pet." The plaintiff says Ganz illegally forces retailers who want to sell Webkinz to buy at least $1,000 of stuff from its "core line," which "consists of Ganz products unrelated to Webkinz, including lip gloss, magnets, and stuffed and rubber animals." The plaintiff demands treble damages, an injunction and costs. Nuts for Candy brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who established an account with Ganz during the period from July 1, 2006 through the present and ordered Webkinz from defendant on the condition that they also order products from Ganz's "core line" of products. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) the definition of the relevant product market for Webkinz; (b) whether Ganz implemented an unlawful and illegal tying arrangement that conditioned retailers' ability to purchase Webkinz on their purchase of a specified, minimum dollar amount tied Ganz products in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (c) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class were injured by reason of Ganz's unlawful conduct; and (d) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by plaintiff and other class members. The plaintiff asks that: -- the court declare and decree that defendants' acts, conduct and practices are unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 USC Section 1) and Section 3 of the Clayton Act (15 USC Section 14); -- the court permanently enjoin defendants, as well as its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys who shall receive actual notice of the court's injunction, from continued engagement in those acts, forms of conduct and practices found to be illegal, as provided by Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 USC Section 26; see also 15 USC Section 4); -- the court award plaintiff and members of the class threefold their actual antitrust damages sustained as a result of defendants' antitrust violations, as provided by Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 USC Section 15); -- the court award plaintiff and members of the clas pre- judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and -- the court award plaintiff and members of the class such other and further relief at law or in equity as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Nuts for Candy et al v. Ganz, Inc. et al, Case No CV 08 2873," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiff are: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. (jcotchett@cpmlegal.com) Steven N. Williams, Esq. (swilliams@cpmlegal.com) Nancy L. Fineman, Esq. (nfineman@cpmlegal.com) Matthew K. Edling, Esq. (medling@cpmlegal.com) Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650-697-6000 Fax: 650-697-0577 HEELYS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heelys, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit now pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 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 company, its former chief executive officer, its chief financial officer, and its directors, who signed the company's registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with its Dec. 7, 2006 initial public offering -- along with Capital Southwest Corp., Capital Southwest Venture Corp., and the underwriters for the IPO -- are defendants in a lawsuit originally filed on Aug. 27, 2007, by plaintiff Brian Rines, individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO registration statement. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiff seeks an order determining that the action may proceed as a class action, awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees. Four similar lawsuits were also filed in September and October 2007 before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, by plaintiffs Vulcan Lee, John Avila, Gerald Markey, and Robert Eiron on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making substantially similar allegations under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and seeking substantially similar damages. These lawsuits have been transferred to a single judge have been consolidated into a single action. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on March 11, 2008. The defendants' responses to the amended consolidated complaint are due to be filed on May 12, 2008. Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel have been appointed. The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus used in connection with the IPO contained misstatements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made not misleading relating to among other allegations, safety concerns and injuries associated with the company's products and their alleged impact on demand, visibility into the company's sales channel and competition from knockoffs, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and requests substantially similar damages and relief as previously requested. Heelys, Inc. -- http://www.heelys.com/-- is a designer, marketer and distributor of sports products under the HEELYS brand, which is targeted to the youth market. The Company's primary product, HEELYS-wheeled footwear, incorporates stealth, removable wheel in the heel. HEELYS-wheeled footwear allows the user to transition from walking or running to skating by shifting weight to the heel. Users can transform HEELYS-wheeled footwear into street footwear by removing the wheel. The Company offers HEELYS-wheeled footwear in a variety of styles and colors. HEELYS-wheeled footwear is protected by numerous trademarks in the United States and certain other countries. LEHMAN BROTHERS: June 30 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a June 30, 2008 deadline for interested parties to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LEH) between September 13, 2006, and July 30, 2007, inclusive, including shares acquired through the Company's defined benefit pension plans. The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Lehman Brothers' financial performance and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Lehman Brothers stock. For more information, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: 215-638-4847 Toll-Free: 888-638-4847 Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ MACK CRAWFORD: Metro Conflict Defender's Closure Challenged ----------------------------------------------------------- Five Fulton County defendants and four state-salaried attorneys filed suit in Fulton County Superior Court, seeking a halt to the planned closure of the Metro Conflict Defender Office, Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. The lawsuit was filed against Mack Crawford -- director of the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council -- and the council's board of directors, after Mr. Crawford announced his plans to close the office at the end of the month, potentially leaving about 1,850 defendants without legal representation. The suit seeks class-action status for all indigent defendants who are now clients of the conflict office and all potential future clients of the office. Representing the plaintiffs are: Stephen B. Bright, Esq. Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street NW Atlanta, GA 30303 Ed Garland, Esq. Don Samuel, Esq. Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C. 3151 Maple Drive, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30305-2503 Phone: 404-262-2225 Fax: 404-365-5041 Web site: http://www.gsllaw-personal-injury.com/ http://www.gsllaw.com/ - and - Ralph I. Knowles, Jr., Esq. Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles & Devine, LLC 1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 MEDQUIST: South Broward Lawsuit Settled; Dismissed by N.J. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- On June 9, 2008, the U.S. District Court District for the District of New Jersey dismissed the South Broward customer class action lawsuit filed against MedQuist Inc. (Pink Sheets: MEDQ.PK) without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right, upon motion and good cause shown within 60 days, to reopen the case if the approved settlement between the parties is not consummated. The company is in the process of informing the court that the settlement has, in fact, been consummated through payment of the settlement amount and filing of a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. As previously announced the South Broward action was filed against the company and certain present and former officers and the complaint alleged that the company overcharged certain non- federal governmental hospitals and medical centers for transcription services. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the company has paid $7,537,001.83 to resolve all claims by the individual named plaintiffs and certain other putative class members represented by plaintiffs' counsel but not named in the action. The settling parties have released the company and all individual defendants from any and all claims and dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice. Neither the company, nor any of the individual defendants, has admitted or will admit to liability or any wrongdoing in connection with the settlement. This dismissal of the South Broward lawsuit follows the other recently disclosed tentative settlement reached on or about April 21, 2008, regarding all individual and class claims related to the consolidated medical transcriptionists' putative class action lawsuit in exchange for payment by MedQuist of $1.5 million plus certain injunctive relief. The consummation of these two settlements will result in the final resolution of all class action litigation matters related to: (i) the allegations raised by a company employee in November 2003 that the company had engaged in improper billing practices, (ii) the company's public disclosure of those allegations and (iii) the company's July 2004 public disclosure of certain findings from the independent review (the Billing Review) of the allegations that was undertaken by the company's board of directors. The previously disclosed, Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice investigations remain ongoing and the company continues to fully cooperate with both investigations. MedQuist, Inc., provides medical transcription and health information management services. The Company is based in Mount Laurel, N.J. and is a majority-owned subsidiary of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Auto Policyholders' Suit in W.Va. Certified -------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia, has certified a class action lawsuit against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, and set a trial date of October 6, 2008. The class includes those West Virginia Nationwide auto policyholders or passengers who were injured or suffered property damage in an accident that occurred between April 11, 1993 and the present. Class members must have: -- been denied UM or UIM coverage, -- been provided less UM or UIM coverage than otherwise required, or -- failed to submit a UM or UIM claim after being told that they did not have UM or UIM coverage by Nationwide, based on Nationwide's 1993 or 1999 mass mailings. The lawsuit claims that Nationwide breached its contracts of insurance with Class Members by failing to provide uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverage to entitled Class Members. The Class also claims that Nationwide's conduct violated the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act and violated Nationwide's duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insureds. Nationwide denies that it did anything wrong. The Court has not yet decided whether the class or Nationwide is right. There are no financial benefits available to class members at this time. The lawsuit is "Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. George G. O'Dell, Jr. and Stacy McKown O'Dell, and Chad David Kenny and Bobbie Dawn Kenny v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 00-C-37," filed in the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia. Representing the plaintiffs is: Scott S. Segal, Esq. (scott.segal@segal-law.com) West Virginia Personal Injury Attorney The Segal Law Firm 810 Kanawha Blvd. E. Charleston, WV 25301-2807 Phone: 304-344-9100 Web site: http://www.segal-law.com/ NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its officers continue to face a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, according to the company's May 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Initially, several suits were filed: -- "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.;" -- "Baird v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.;" -- "McCormick v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.;" and -- "Skubella v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." All lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and allege that between August 2005 and May 2006, the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the company's market prospects for its proprietary drug, PREOS(R), in violation of federal securities laws. PREOS is for the treatment of osteoporosis. By order dated Sept. 14, 2006, the court consolidated the four separately filed lawsuits into one action. By order dated Nov. 17, 2006, the court appointed lead plaintiff and counsel for the proposed class. On Jan. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff and its counsel filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting two federal securities claims on behalf of lead plaintiff and all other shareholders of the company who purchased publicly traded shares of company between Aug. 7, 2001, and May 2, 2006. The consolidated complaint asserts two claims: -- a claim founded upon Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the 1934 Act, and -- SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, which is asserted against all defendants, and a claim founded upon Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, which is asserted against the individual defendants. Both claims are based on the allegations that, during the class period, the company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements to the investing public concerning PREOS. The consolidated complaint alleges that false and misleading statements were made during the class period concerning the efficacy of PREOS as a treatment for post-menopausal osteoporosis, the potential market for PREOS, the dangers of hypercalcemic toxicity as a side effect of injectable PREOS, and the prospects of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of NPS's New Drug Application for injectable PREOS. The complaint also alleges claims of option backdating and insider trading of stock during the class period. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, unspecified equitable or injunctive relief, and an award of an unspecified amount for plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees. On March 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the court denied on July 3, 2007. On Aug. 1, 2007, the court entered a scheduling order setting a trial date for the action on April 20, 2009. On Nov. 1, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed its motion to certify the class of shareholders that it seeks to represent in the action. On Jan. 30, 2008, the defendants filed an opposition to this motion, and it is currently pending before the court. The suit is "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceutical, et al., Case No. 2:06- cv-00570-PGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Judge Paul G. Cassell, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Ste. 2805 New York City, NY 10119 Phone: 212-279-5050 - and - Scott A. Call, Esq. (scall@aklawfirm.com) Anderson & Karrenberg 50 W. Broadway, Ste. 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: 801-534-1700 NVE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Minn. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re: NVE Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:06-cv-00574-MJD-JJG," are appealing the dismissal of their case by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit was against NVE Corp. and certain of the company's current and former executive officers and directors. On Feb. 10, 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors by an individual shareholder seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the company's common stock between May 22, 2003, and Feb. 11, 2005. On Mar. 6 and 7, 2006, two additional lawsuits were filed in the same court by two additional NVE shareholders, with the same proposed class period, purporting to represent the same class. These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single case and a consolidated complaint was filed. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing material misrepresentations concerning NVE's projected revenues and product technology, which artificially inflated the market price of the company's common stock. On July 3, 2007, the U.S. District Court granted the company's motion to dismiss these consolidated lawsuits, with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed an appeal from the Court's order and the appeal is still pending, according to the company's May 19, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008. The suit is "In re: NVE Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:06-cv-00574-MJD-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Judge Michael J. Davis, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregg M. Corwin, Esq. (gcorwin@gcorwin.com) Gregg M. Corwin & Associates Law Office, PC 1660 S Hwy 100, Ste. 508 St. Louis Park, MN 55416-1534 Phone: 952-544-7774 Fax: 952-544-7151 - and - William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 N., Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405-235-1560 Fax: 405-239-2112 Representing the defendants is: Peter W. Carter, Esq. (carter.peter@dorsey.com) Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Phone: 612-340-2600 Fax: 612-340-2868 ONTARIO LOTTERY: Couple Files CDN$3.5BB Problem Gambling Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Markham couple has launched a CDN$3.5-billion class-action lawsuit against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. on behalf of gamblers who say they asked to be forbidden from casinos but were still allowed inside, Joe Fantauzzi writes for Georgina Advocate. The statement of claim, filed by Peter Dennis and his wife, Zubin Noble, says that Mr. Dennis and each of the class members were "compulsive gamblers" and that problem gambling "disrupts, compromises and ultimately destroys the lives of individual problem gamblers by causing a range of harms for them and their family members including emotional, social, financial, legal, employment, educational and health-related harms." The statement of claim further reads that Ontario Lottery failed to take reasonable steps to implement its voluntary self- exclusion policy by relying on memory-based enforcement and failing to "implement reasonable measures other than memory- based enforcement to deny self-excluded customers entry to its gambling venues including, but not limited to, 'carding' using photo-identification and other approaches and technologies available to the OLGC," some of which were being used to identify and monitor under age people and cheaters. PB LITIGATION: Suit Settlement Provides for Plumbing Replacement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Under the terms of a class action settlement, if a polybutylene pipe system has leaked, is leaking now or leaks in the future, homeowners may qualify for a free plumbing replacement if they file their claims by May 1, 2009. PB plumbing was installed in an estimated six million homes between January 1, 1978, and July 31, 1995, the dates for installations covered by the settlement. More than 330,000 homeowners have had their plumbing systems replaced under the free program so far, but tens of thousands more may be eligible for the free plumbing replacement. Established in 1995, the $1.1 billion PB pipe Settlement Fund has spent over $976 million in homeowner relief. There is no cost for homeowners. The Consumer Plumbing Recovery Center, established by the Court to administer the Fund, has received more than 2.1 million inquiries. PB pipe, often referred to as plastic pipe, is somewhat flexible and usually gray, as opposed to PVC or CPVC products that are rigid and usually white or off-white. The pipes are joined by plastic or metal fittings held in place by aluminum or copper bands, about the diameter of a quarter. PB pipe might be located in an attic, crawl space or water heater closet, but is often installed beneath insulation materials. It is not used for drains, waste or vent piping, yard sprinkler systems, irrigation systems, fire sprinkler systems, sewer lines, faucets or fixtures. Homeowners with PB pipe can call the CPRC at 1-800-392-7591 or visit http://www.pbpipe.com/for information about filing a claim and to access claim forms. "Consumers have found the plumbing replacement process quite simple and easy," says Tim Taylor, general manager of the CPRC. "We are eager to inform them about the relief they are eligible to receive and to help them through the plumbing replacement process." Because all claims must be filed by May 1, 2009, "homeowners with leaking PB pipe should call the CPRC or access the website as soon as possible," Mr. Taylor says. Homeowners who purchased their homes after September 12, 2005 have the right to exclude themselves from the Court-supervised replacement program and pursue their own claims. The home purchase date is earlier in certain counties in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas that were affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. There, homeowners can exclude themselves if their home was purchased after August 12, 2002. Exclusion request forms must be filed before September 1, 2008, and are available at http://www.pbpipe.com/ PEPSICO INC: No Berries in Crunch Berries, Calif. Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- PepsiCo Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging it deceptively pushes its "Captain Crunch with Crunch Berries" cereal, which contains no berries and only a wee bit of strawberry concentrate, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Janine Sugawara brings this action pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1781, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of all California consumers who purchased the product during the class period, defined as the four years preceding the filing of this action. Ms. Sugawara wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant's practices and representations made in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, labeling and sales of the product as set forth in the complaint were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in any respect, thereby violating California's Unfair Competition Law, California Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (b) whether defendant's practices and representations made in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, labeling and sales of the product as set forth in the complaint were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in any respect, thereby violating California's False Advertising Law, California bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.; (c) whether defendant's practices and representations made in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, labeling and sales of the Product as set forth in the complaint were false or misleading in any respect; (d) whether defendant breached any implied or express warranties in connection with the practices and representations made in the advertising, marketing, promotion, labeling and sales of the product as set forth in the complaint, at the expense of and to the detriment of plaintiff and class members; (e) whether defendant violated Civil Code Section 1770(a)(5) et seq. by the practices and representations made in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, labeling and sales of the product as set forth in the complaint; and (f) whether defendant's conduct as set forth in the complaint injured California consumers and if so, the extent of the injury. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- an order certifying that the action may be maintained as a class action; -- an award of equitable relief as follows: (i) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices and deceptive labeling and advertising described in the complaint; (ii) requiring defendant to make full restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the conduct described in the complaint; (iii) requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains flowing from the conduct described in the complaint; (iv) requiring defendant to provide public notice of the true nature of the product; -- actual and punitive damages under the CLRA in an amount to be proven at trial, including any damages as may be provided for by statute upon the filing of a First Amended Complaint should the demanded corrections not take place within the 30-day notice period; -- an award of attorney's fees pursuant to, inter alia, Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5; -- actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial; -- an award of costs and any other relief the court might deem appropriate; and -- pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. The suit is "Janine Sugawara, et al. v. PepsiCo, Inc.," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Representing the plaintiff are: Howard Rubinstein, Esq. 914 Waters Avenue, Suite 20 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 832-715-2788 - and - Harold M. Hewell, Esq. (hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com) Hewell Law Firm, APC 1901 First Avenue, Second Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-235-6854 Fax: 619-235-9122 PMI GROUP: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California ------------------------------------------------------------ The PMI Group, Inc., is facing two purported securities fraud class action lawsuits that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 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. In March 2008, the company and certain of its executive officers were named in a securities class-action complaint filed before ith the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under the caption, "Lori Weinrib v. The PMI Group, Inc., L. Stephen Smith, David H. Katkov and Donald P. Lofe, Jr." In March 2008, the company and the same executive officers were named in a second securities fraud class-action complaint also filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under the caption, "Kimberly D. Holt v. The PMI Group, Inc., L. Stephen Smith, David H. Katkov and Donald P. Lofe, Jr." These complaints allege that the company and the other defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making false and misleading statements regarding our business and financial results for the period between Nov. 2, 2006, and March 3, 2008, the date we announced preliminary results for the fourth quarter of 2007 for certain of our business segments. The purported class action lawsuits seek, among other relief, determinations that the action is a proper class action, unspecified damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The PMI Group, Inc. -- http://www.pmigroup.com-- is a provider of financial products for residential mortgages, public finance obligations and asset-backed securities. The Company operates through four segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance Operations, International Operations, Financial Guaranty, and Corporate and Other. The Company's U.S. subsidiary, PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. is a residential mortgage insurer. PMI offers a variety of mortgage insurance and structured finance products. Through its Australian subsidiaries (PMI Australia) it provides mortgage insurance in Australia and New Zealand. PMI Australia provides credit enhancement products to lending institutions, as well as credit enhancement for residential mortgage-backed securitizations. Its European subsidiaries (PMI Europe) offer mortgage insurance and mortgage credit enhancement products, including primary mortgage insurance, structured portfolio products and reinsurance products, primarily tailored to the European mortgage markets. QUANTA CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd., is seeking the dismissal of securities fraud lawsuits filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 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. Zirkin & Coronel Complaints On Feb. 5, 2007, Harold Zirkin filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, "Zirkin v. Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 07 CV 851." On Feb. 26, 2007, Jorge Coronel filed a complaint against the company in the same Court, and under the caption, "Coronel v. Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 07 CV 1405." Both complaints alleged that the company violated the federal securities laws as a result of false or misleading statements in disclosures to the investing public. Both of these cases are now pending before Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr. On May 7, 2007, Judge Patterson appointed Zirkin-Cutler Investments, Inc., as lead plaintiff for a putative class of investors who purchased the company's preferred shares, and appointed Washington State Plumbing and Pipefitting Pension Trust as lead plaintiff for a putative class of investors who purchased our common shares. Judge Patterson directed Mr. Zirkin and Washington State Plumbing to file amended pleadings that would supersede the complaints previously filed by Mr. Zirkin and Mr. Coronel. Zirkin Complaint On July 16, 2007, Ms. Zirkin filed an amended complaint. The amended Zirkin Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the company's preferred shares between Dec. 14, 2005, and March 2, 2006. The Zirkin Complaint alleges that the company made false statements concerning reserves for hurricane-related losses in a registration statement and prospectus that were circulated to investors in connection with a securities offering the company completed in December 2005. The Zirkin Complaint alleges that the company is liable under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. In addition to the company, Zirkin named as defendants two firms that served as underwriters for the offering -- Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co., Inc. and BB&T Capital Markets -- as well as six individuals who served as officers or directors at the time of the offering -- James Ritchie, Jonathan Dodd, Robert Lippincott III, Michael Murphy, Nigel Morris, and W. Russell Ramsey. Washington Complaint Washington State Plumbing filed a separate amended complaint on July 16, 2007. Washington State Plumbing's complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the company' common shares between Oct. 4, 2005, and April 3, 2006. The Washington Complaint alleges that during that period, the company made false and misleading statements, and omitted to state material information, in various disclosures. The disclosures and alleged omissions at issue in the case relate to reserves for hurricane-related losses, reserves related to an oil pipeline leak, and the quality of our internal controls over financial reporting. The Washington Complaint alleges claims against the company under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, based on statements made in connection with the above-referenced securities offering and under Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on statements made at various times and contexts. The Company, FBR, BBT, and the six individuals named as individual defendants in the Zirkin Complaint (Messrs. Ritchie, Dodd, Lippincott, Murphy, Morris, and Ramsey) are all named as defendants in the Washington Complaint as well. In addition, the Washington Complaint also names as a defendant Tobey Russ (former chairman of the company's board of directors and former chief executive officer). Case Developments In September 2007, the company filed motions challenging the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in both cases, and asked the Court to dismiss both cases. The briefing on these motions was completed in January 2008 and a hearing was held in April 2008. The company reported no further development in both matters in its regulatory filing. Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.quantaholdings.com/ -- has been formed to provide specialty lines insurance, reinsurance, risk assessment and risk technical services on a global basis through its affiliated companies. ROYAL BANK: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Fixed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a July 11, 2008 deadline for interested parties to move for lead plaintiff appointment in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers of auction rate securities from Royal Bank of Canada, RBC Dain Rauscher Inc., and RBC Capital Markets Corporation between May 12, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive, and continued to hold such securities as of February 13, 2008. The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations or failing to disclose material adverse facts to the market concerning the risks and liquidity of auction rate securities, which caused those securities to be overvalued and artificially inflated. For more information, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Phone: 215-638-4847 Toll-Free: 888-638-4847 Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ SHOCKLEY FINANCIAL: Faces Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Shockley Financial Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc., is facing three substantially identical purported antitrust class action lawsuits over municipal derivatives, according to Nelnet's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. In each of the lawsuits, certain financial institutions are named as defendants. The complaints allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy not to compete and to fix prices and rig bids for municipal derivatives (including guaranteed investment contracts) sold to issuers of municipal bonds. All the complaints assert claims for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and fraudulent concealment and one complaint also asserts claims for unfair competition and violation of the California Cartwright Act. Nelnet, Inc. -- http://www.nelnet.net/-- is an education planning and financing company focused on providing products and services to students, families and schools nationwide. The Company offers a range of pre-college, in-college and post- college products and services to students, families, schools and financial institutions. These products and services help students and families plan and pay for their education, and students plan their careers. Nelnet has five operating segments: Asset Generation and Management, Student Loan and Guaranty Servicing, Tuition Payment Processing and Campus Commerce, Enrollment Services and List Management, and Software and Technical Services. SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I" --------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit, "Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 99 C 30, or Price Litigation I." The putative class action suit was filed on May 28, 1999, wherein the named plaintiffs have sued over 50 defendants, including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment, the fourth amended class action petition alleges that the defendants have under-measured the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages. On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. Despite a denial by the court on April 10, 2003, of their original motion for class certification, the plaintiffs continue to seek the certification of a class. The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for a second time was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on this motion on April 1, 2005. In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs. It is unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions. The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. -- http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding company for its regulated pipeline operations and development opportunities. Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its only operating subsidiary. Southern Star also owns the development rights for Western Frontier, which could be developed in the future. The company owns and operate an approximately 6,000 mile interstate natural gas pipeline and associated storage facilities in the Midwest, serving customers in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Texas. SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by Plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 03 C 23, or Price Litigation II." The putative class action suit was filed on May 12, 2003. The named plaintiffs from Price Litigation I have sued the same defendants, including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. Asserting substantially identical legal and equitable theories, as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the defendants have undermeasured the British thermal units, or BTU, content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for punitive damages. On Nov. 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central. The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with the plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price Litigation I, was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on this motion on April 1, 2005. In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs. It is unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions. The company reported no development in the matter in its May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. -- http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding company for its regulated pipeline operations and development opportunities. Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its only operating subsidiary. Southern Star also owns the development rights for Western Frontier, which could be developed in the future. The company owns and operate an approximately 6,000 mile interstate natural gas pipeline and associated storage facilities in the Midwest, serving customers in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Texas. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Court Still to Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet to rule on a motion that seeks the consolidation of several purported consumer fraud class action lawsuits against Vonage Holdings Corp. Initially, the company was named in several purported class action complaints filed in California, New Jersey, Ohio and Washington. The suits allege a wide variety of deficiencies with respect to the company's business practices, marketing disclosures, email marketing and quality issues for both phone and fax service. These cases seek relief under various state consumer protection statutes, federal anti-spam laws, and common law theories. Some of the actions allege that the company failed to adequately disclose terms of service, including how the money-back guarantee and the free month of service operate. Various plaintiffs allege that the disconnect fees are improper and that the company failed to honor promised rebates. In addition, some plaintiffs allege the company falsely represented cost savings for its customers and deceptively describe the nature and quality of our service. Other plaintiffs claim its facsimile service is defective. Theses various class action suits, on behalf of both nationwide and state classes, pending in New Jersey, Washington and California, are generally alleging that the company: -- delayed and refused to allow consumers to cancel their company service; -- failed to disclose procedural impediments to cancellation; -- failed to adequately disclose that their 30-day money back guarantee does not give consumers 30 days to try out the company's services; -- suppressed and concealed the true nature of its services and disseminated false advertising about the quality, nature and terms of the company's services; -- imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and -- invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of Service to the detriment of customers. On May 11, 2007, the plaintiffs in one action petitioned the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for transfer and consolidation of the pending actions to a single court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The motion was heard on July 26, 2007, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the Panel, in an order dated Aug. 15, 2007, transferred the pending actions to the U.S. Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned, "In re Vonage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1862, Master Docket No. 07- CV-3906 (USDC, D.N.J.)." On Oct. 1, 2007, the counsel for one group of plaintiffs asked the court for appointment of co-lead counsel of the actions, and requested time to file an amended consolidated complaint. The court has not yet ruled on the motion. The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber lines as of Dec. 31, 2006. Utilizing its voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost communications services. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Seeks Nixing of Amended Complaint in IPO Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Vonage Holdings Corp. is seeking the dismissal of an amended complaint in a consolidated class action lawsuit over the company's initial public offering pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 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. In June and July 2006, Vonage, several of the company's officers and directors, and the firms who served as underwriters in the company's IPO, were named as defendants in several similar purported class action lawsuits. The cases were filed in these courts: -- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, -- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, -- Supreme Court of the State of New York (subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York), and -- Superior Court of New Jersey (subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey). The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common stock in connection with the company's IPO. The complaints allege, among other things, that the company omitted and misstated certain facts concerning the IPO's Customer Directed Share Program. Some complaints also allege that the IPO prospectus contained misrepresentations or omissions concerning certain of the company's products and the prior experience of some of its management. On Jan. 9, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all complaints to the District of New Jersey. Following briefing, on Sept. 7, 2007, the Court appointed Zyssman Group as the lead plaintiff, and the law firm of Zwerling, Schachter and Zwerling, LLP, as lead counsel. On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which generally alleges that: -- defendants made misstatements regarding subscriber line growth and average monthly churn rate; -- defendants failed to disclose problems with facsimile transmissions and a pending fax litigation case; -- defendants failed to disclose all patent infringement claims and issues; and -- the Directed Share Program suffered from various infirmities. On Jan. 18, 2008, the defendants filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On March 3, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the dismissal motion and the defendants filed their reply brief on April 2, 2008. The company reported no further development in the matter in its regulatory filing. Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber lines as of Dec. 31, 2006. Utilizing its voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost communications services. WACHOVIA BANK: Spector Roseman Files ERISA Lawsuit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., has filed a class action complaint against Wachovia Corporation (NYSE:WB) and various officers and administrators, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in the handling of investments in the Wachovia Savings Plan. The complaint was filed on June 9, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Plan administrators and fiduciaries breached their duties to Plan participants and beneficiaries by continuing to invest in and hold Wachovia stock despite the fact that they knew or should have known that Wachovia was not properly reporting its financial condition and was not disclosing significant problems which had the effect of inflating the value of Company stock. Among the matters allegedly not disclosed were: (1) Wachovia continued to issue non-conforming real estate mortgages to borrowers without considering their credit scores or verifying their assets or employment status; (2) Wachovia understated and delayed recognition of its loan losses and took other actions that violated federal securities laws; (3) Wachovia failed to adjust its methodology for loss provisions in a manner that took into account known changes in the credit landscape; (4) Wachovia misled investors as to its auction rate securities and failed to disclose that these instruments were actually long-term instruments that were not liquid; (5) Wachovia was, due to its investment in hedge funds managed by Citigroup, heavily exposed in bank-owned life insurance policies, an investment which later caused it to report a $315 million write-down for the first quarter of 2008; and (6) Wachovia failed to maintain sufficient management controls to timely address problems in a manner that has affected the Company's reputation and perceived integrity. Notwithstanding the above, the complaint alleges that Plan fiduciaries maintained a large investment of Plan assets in Company stock at a time when they should have known that it was an unsuitable as a savings and retirement investment. Wachovia employees who had most of their Plan assets in Company stock have incurred a substantial loss in their retirement investment. A breach of fiduciary duties occurs when fiduciaries fail to manage the assets of the Plan in the sole interest of the plan participants by investing the assets in Company stock when it was no longer a prudent investment for participants' retirement savings. The proposed class includes all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Wachovia National Corporation Savings Plan and whose accounts in the Plan were invested in Wachovia Stock at any time during the period January 1, 2006 through the present. For more information, contact: Robert M. Roseman, Esq. Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 888-844-5862 WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Multi-District Litigation in Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Mutual, Inc., is facing a multi-district litigation that was consolidated 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. Securities Litigation On Nov. 5, 2007, two securities class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its officers: 1. "Koesterer v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. 07- CIV-9801 (S.D.N.Y. Filed Nov. 5, 2007);" and 2. "Abrams v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. 07-IV- 9806 (S.D.N.Y. Filed Nov. 5, 2007)." A third case was filed in Seattle, Washington, on Nov. 7, 2007, under the caption, "Nelson v. Washington Mutual, Inc. et al., No. C07-1809 (W.D. Wa.)." The Koesterer case seeks relief on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between July 19, 2006, and Oct. 31, 2007. The Abrams case seeks relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between Oct. 18, 2006, and Nov. 1, 2007. The Nelson matter seeks relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between April 18, 2006, and Nov. 1, 2007. The plaintiffs in these cases assert that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other things, the conspiracy with eAppraiseIT as alleged by the Attorney General as well as various aspects of the company's performance and accounting in light of that alleged conspiracy and of changing conditions in the home lending and credit markets. A fourth lawsuit, entitled, "Garber v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. (S.D. N.Y. Filed Dec. 20, 2007)," makes nearly identical allegations on behalf of persons who purchased the securities of Washington Mutual from April 18, 2006, through Dec. 10, 2007. The Nelson matter has been dismissed. The Koesterer, Abrams, and Garber cases remain pending. Derivative Litigation On Nov. 13, 2007, two shareholder derivative actions were filed nominally on behalf of the company against certain of its officers and directors. The suits are: 1. "Sneva v. Killinger, et al., No. C07-1826 (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 13, 2007);" and 2. "Harrison v. Killinger, et al., No. C07-1827 (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 13, 2007)." A third shareholder derivative action was filed in Washington State Superior Court on Nov. 16, 2007, under the caption, "Catholic Medical Mission v. Killinger et al., No. 07-2-36548- 6SEA (Wa. Super. Ct. Filed Nov. 16, 2007)." Since then, six additional shareholder derivative actions have been filed in federal court, namely: 1. "Slater v. Killinger et al., No. C08-0005 (W.D. Wa., filed Jan. 3, 2008);" 2. "Procida v. Killinger et al., No. 08-Civ-0565 (S.D.N.Y., filed Jan. 18, 2008), (Procida I);" 3. "Ryan v. Killinger et al., C08-0095 (W.D. Wa., filed Jan. 18, 2008)." 4. "Procida v. Killinger et al., No. C08-0389 (W.D. Wa., filed March 6, 2008), (Procida II):" 5. "Henry v. Killinger et al., No. C08-0566 (W.D. Wa., filed April 10, 2008);" and 6. "Scheller v. Killinger et al., No. C08-0647 (W.D. Wa., filed April 25, 2008)." Three additional shareholder derivative actions were also filed in state court: i. "Breene v. Killinger, et al., No. 07-2-41042-2SEA (Wa. Super. Ct. Filed Dec. 28, 2007);" ii. "Gibb v. Killinger, et al., No. 07-2-41044-9SEA (Wa. Super. Ct. Filed Dec. 28, 2007);" and iii. "Brody v. First American Corp. et al., No. 08-2-13425- 3 SEA. Sneva. The allegations in the suits mirror those in the Securities Actions, but seek relief based on claims that the defendants, among other things: -- breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by materially misleading the investing public and failing to disclose material adverse information about the Company; -- participated in a conspiracy to defraud the Company and its shareholders; -- abused their ability to control the Company; -- caused an illegal waste of Company assets; -- have been unjustly enriched; and -- improperly profited from the sale of Company stock based on misappropriated, inside information. ERISA Litigation Beginning on Nov. 20, 2007, nine ERISA class action lawsuits were filed against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and, in some cases, the Washington Mutual Human Resources Committee, and the Plan Administration and Plan Investment Committees of the WaMu Savings Plan. The suits are: 1. "Bushansky v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-1874 (W.D. Wa., filed Nov. 20, 2007);" 2. "Bussey v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07- 1879 (W.D. Wa., filed Nov. 21, 2007);" 3. "Alexander v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-1906 (W.D. Wa., filed Nov. 29, 2007);" 4. "Mitchell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07- 1938 (W.D. Wa., filed Dec. 5, 2007);" 5. "Ware v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-1997 (W.D. Wa., filed Dec. 13, 2007);" 6. "Rosenblatt v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-2025 (W.D. Wa., filed Dec. 18, 2007); 7. "McDonald v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07- 2055 (W.D. Wa., filed Dec. 21, 2007);" 8. "Marra v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07- 2076 (W.D. Wa., filed Dec. 27, 2007);" 9. "Sloan v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C08-471 (W.D. Wa., filed Mar. 24, 2008)." The plaintiffs in the ERISA Actions assert that the defendants were fiduciaries of the WaMu Savings Plan and breached their duties to Plan participants by, among other things: -- failing to manage the Plan for the exclusive benefit of its participants or to use the care, skill, diligence, and prudence necessary to manage the Plan; -- continuing to offer company stock as an investment option in the plan despite that they knew or should have known that the stock no longer was a suitable and appropriate investment for the Plan; -- failing to conduct an appropriate investigation of the merits of continued investment in company stock; and -- failing to provide complete and accurate information regarding the Plan to the Plan's participants. Multi-District Litigation On Nov. 28, 2007, the company moved before the JPML for an order that those of the Securities, Derivative and ERISA Actions then filed in federal court be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The JPML granted the company's motion on Feb. 21, 2008. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 and JPML Rules 7.2 and 7.5, the company previously had filed with the JPML a Notice of Tag- Along Action with respect to each of the Securities, Derivative and ERISA Actions filed in federal courts after Nov. 28, 2007, and before Feb. 21, 2008 (the Garber Securities Action, the Procida I and Ryan Derivative Actions, and the Alexander, Mitchell, Ware, Rosenblatt, McDonald, and Marra ERISA Actions), and all of the federally filed cases have now been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On April 18, 2008, the Court issued an order setting an initial status conference in the Securities, ERISA, and federally filed Derivative Actions. That conference was scheduled for June 9, 2008. The April 18 Order vacated all prior deadlines and granted the defendants "an extension of time for responding by motion or answer to the complaints until a date to be set after the conference." On May 7, 2008, the Court consolidated all of the Securities Actions into a single case, "In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C08-387 MJP," appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated, amended complaint and an anticipated motion to dismiss. On the same date, the Court consolidated all of the ERISA Actions into a single case, "In re Washington Mutual, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. C07-1874 MJP." The Court has not yet appointed lead counsel for this action. The Court has not yet taken action on competing motions to consolidate and appoint lead counsel in the federally filed Derivative Actions. Agreed orders have been entered in the state court-filed Derivative Actions except Brody pursuant to which the defendants are not required to respond to the complaints until the federal court resolves the motion to dismiss the Securities Suits. The parties in Brody are discussing a possible stipulation. Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer and small business banking company with operations in U.S. markets. The Company is a savings and loan holding company. It owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and Washington Mutual Bank fsb (WMBfsb), as well as numerous non- bank subsidiaries. The Company operates in four segments: the Retail Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of 2,257 stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York, Washington, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services Group, which operates a nationwide credit card lending business; the Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and commercial real estate lending business in selected markets, and the Home Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets activities. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wants California Suit Over Home Loans Nixed -------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Mutual, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit over home loans now pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Feb. 8, 2008, a class action suit was filed against the company and other defendants on behalf of a putative class of persons in the U.S. who obtained home loans from the company and "received an appraisal performed by" appraisal management companies eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service, Inc. The suit, "Spears v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C08-00868-HRL," was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit asserts that an alleged conspiracy to inflate appraisals by the company, eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service, Inc., violated RESPA, Section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code, and California's Consumer's Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs also bring various common law claims. They seek, among other things, the recovery of actual and treble damages, restitution, an injunction, and costs and attorneys' fees. The company has not yet responded to the complaint, but has filed with the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation a Notice of Tag-Along Action with respect to the Spears lawsuit (Class Action reporter, April 1, 2008). The plaintiffs in the Spears lawsuit will have 15 days to object to the transfer once the JPML issues a conditional Transfer Order. Motions to dismiss the amended complaint were filed on May 2, 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 "Spears v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C08-00868-HRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Howard R. Lloyd, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael David Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group, P.C. 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 109 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 Fax: 310-442-7756 e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com - and - Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. (jnk@ssem.com) Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, P.C. The 26th Floor Koppers Building 436 Seventh Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-642-2300 Fax: 412-642-2309 Representing the defendants are: Robert J. Pfister, Esq. (rpfister@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-407-7500 Fax: 310-407-7502 - and - Martin L. Fineman, Esq. (martinfineman@dwt.com) Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 505 Montgomery Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111-6533 Phone: 415-276-6500 Fax: 415-276-6599 WASHINGTON MUTUAL: N.Y. Court Mulls $336MM Antitrust Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to approve a $336-million settlement reached by Washington Mutual, Inc., and several other defendants in the matter, "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.)." In and around February 2001, a number of cardholder class actions were filed against the MasterCard and Visa associations, and several member banks alleging, among other things, that they had conspired, in violation of antitrust laws, to fix the price of currency conversion services for credit card purchases made in a foreign currency by U.S. cardholders. Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant. Pursuant to orders of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the cases were consolidated or coordinated for pretrial purposes, under the caption, "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.)." In July 2006, the parties agreed to settle the case for $336 million. The Company's share of the settlement, which has been paid into an escrow account, was covered by existing reserves. The Court has set the hearing on the entry of Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal for March 31, 2008. The Court has not yet issued its ruling, according to the company's May 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. A Web site -- http://www.ccfsettlement.com-- has been created to provide information about the lawsuit and settlement, and to allow class members to file their claims on-line. This Web site contains Court Orders and other important documents concerning the settled litigation (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2008). Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer and small business banking company with operations in U.S. markets. The Company is a savings and loan holding company. It owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and Washington Mutual Bank fsb (WMBfsb), as well as numerous non- bank subsidiaries. The Company operates in four segments: the Retail Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of 2,257 stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York, Washington, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services Group, which operates a nationwide credit card lending business; the Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and commercial real estate lending business in selected markets, and the Home Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets activities. New Securities Fraud Cases FRANKLIN BANK: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Lawsuit in Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Berens LLP disclosed that a proposed class-action lawsuit on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Franklin Bank Corp. between April 26, 2007, and May 1, 2008, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Franklin Bank and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that, during the Class Period, the defendants concealed that: (i) Franklin Bank's assets contained tens of millions of dollars worth of impaired and risky securities; (ii) defendants failed to properly account for Franklin Bank's mortgage-related assets; (iii) defendants had not properly accounted for single family loans serviced by third parties that became delinquent; and (iv) Franklin Bank's call reports filed with the FDIC beginning with the September 2007 quarter, at the latest, and its Form 10-Q for the September 2007 quarter were in error due to the Company's failure to properly account for losses on mortgage loans and residential real estate owned properties. For more information, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) Dyer & Berens LLP 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 888-300-3362 303-861-1764 Fax: 303-395-0393 Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com/ HEALTHWAYS INC: Howard Smith Files Tennessee Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Healthways, Inc. (Nasdaq: HWAY) between October 17, 2007, and February 26, 2008. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Healthways' financial performance and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Healthways stock. Interested parties may move the court no later than August 4, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Phone: 215-638-4847 Toll-Free: 888-638-4847 Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ INDYMAC BANCORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. common stock during the period between August 16, 2007, and May 12, 2008. The complaint charges IndyMac and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. IndyMac is the holding company for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., a hybrid thrift or mortgage bank. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, defendants downplayed and concealed IndyMac's growing exposure to non-performing assets, particularly loans in its pay-option adjustable-rate mortgage (Option ARM) and homebuilder construction portfolios, and made numerous positive representations regarding the Company's capital position to alleviate investors' fears concerning the Company's capital erosion. As a result of defendants' false statements, IndyMac stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a Class Period high of $24.55 per share in October 2007. Then on May 12, 2008, IndyMac announced its first quarter 2008 financial results, including a net loss of $184.2 million, or ($2.27) per share, compared with net earnings of $52.4 million, or $0.70 per share, in the first quarter of 2007. On this news, IndyMac's stock dropped to close at $2.32 per share -- a two-day decline of $1.11 per share, or 32%, and a decline of 91% from $24.55 per share on October 2, 2007. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company was not adequately reserving for its losses on mortgage-related assets in violation of generally accepted accounting principles; (b) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated related to its homebuilder and Option ARM portfolios losses and defaults concerning its book of business than it had previously disclosed; (c) the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to withstand the significant deterioration in the credit and real estate markets and could jeopardize the Company's status as well capitalized; (d) IndyMac had not adequately reserved for Option ARMs; and (e) given the Company's exposure to the increased volatility in the credit and real estate markets, the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its earnings. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of IndyMac common stock during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 619-231-1058 LEHMAN BROTHERS: Holzer & Fistel Files Illinois Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. The complaint alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to the public in its press releases and in its Securities Exchange Commission filings. Specifically, the complaint alleges Lehman made misrepresentations relating to its investments in collateralized debt obligations and subprime mortgage backed derivatives and the risks associated with those investments. For more information, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta, GA 30338 NEXCEN BRANDS: Charles Johnson Files Securities Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Charles H. Johnson & Associates disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of NexCen Brands Inc. publicly traded securities during the period May 10, 2007, through May 19, 2008. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose: 1) that the Company was able to finance a portion of the Great American Cookies acquisition by agreeing to an accelerated-redemption feature, which would force the Company to pay back half of its borrowing by a certain date; 2) that the Company was unable to comply with this accelerated-redemption feature, which would reduce the amount of cash available to the Company; 3) that the Company had no reasonable basis for its earnings guidance for fiscal 2008; and 4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to continue as a going concern was in serious doubt. On May 19, 2008, the Company announced that it expected to amend its Form 10-K annual report for the year ended December 31, 2007 and that its prior financial guidance for 2008 was no longer applicable. Upon this news, shares of NexCen's stock fell $1.95 per share, or 77%, to close at $0.58 per share. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 28, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com) Charles H. Johnson & Associates 2599 Mississippi Street New Brighton, MN 55112 Phone: 651-633-5685 TOMOTHERAPY INC: Roy Jacobs Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of TomoTherapy, Inc., from October 10, 2007, through April 17, 2008. On October 10, 2007 the Company's secondary share offering of 8.5 million shares (the Offering) became effective at $22.25 per share. None of the proceeds of the Offering were received by the Company. Rather, the Company's Chairman, its Chief Executive Officer, its President and its Chief Financial Officer sold a very significant number of shares and together received tens of millions of dollars in proceeds. The complaint charges TOMO and the officers referenced above with violations of the Federal Securities Laws. It is alleged, inter alia that defendants concealed in the Offering and thereafter that a larger percentage of TOMO's revenue backlog was from for-profit entities which had ordered multi-unit Hi-Art X-ray medical treatment systems and could be anticipated to take delivery of the units sequentially throughout 2008 and 2009. Thus, contrary to defendants' representations that order backlog would generally be recognized as revenue within 12 months of order placement, this was not the case with respect to the multi-unit orders, which represented an increasingly large percentage of total backlog. On April 17, 2008, defendants issued a press release announcing that TOMO would suffer a net loss for the first quarter of 2008, and that defendants had revised materially downward their revenue and earnings outlook for fiscal 2008. Defendants finally admitted that a greater percentage of TOMO's backlogged orders were for multi-unit Hi-Art systems ordered by for profit entities who would be expected to take delivery of the units sequentially. Thus, these units would remain in backlog longer than single-unit orders and delivery would be pushed further back in 2008 and even into 2009. The representation that backlog could ordinarily be converted into recognized revenue within 12 months from order placement was finally revealed as false, incomplete, and misleading. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 29, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com) Roy Jacobs & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: 1-888-884-4490 Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Mills Action v. Lexington Jail --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division, granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Jail Administrator, Lexington County Detention Center, and James Metts, Sheriff of Lexington County, in an action involving asbestos filed by Tyler Mills. The case was styled Derrick Tyler Mills, Plaintiff, v. Jail Administrator, Lexington County Detention Center, suit brought in individual capacity, and James Metts, Sheriff, Lexington County, Defendants. Henry F. Floyd entered judgment of Civil Action No. 6:07-1695- HFF-WMC on April 25, 2008. Mr. Mills said that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in relation to the 1983 complaint when jail officials show a reckless disregard to protect him from the risk of a potentially serious medical need by failing to renovate or locate its jail facility for a more health-free "asbestos" facility. Mr. Mills stated that he has been "engulfed with the idea as having the effects of asbestos disease" and further stated that he has been experiencing irregular bowel movements. He sought compensatory and punitive damages, including damages for "mental anguish." Mr. Mills filed a previous complaint with the District Court on Nov. 9, 2004. He named the LCDC, Sgt. NFN Jones, Sgt. NFN Granger, Sgt. NFN Hargrove, and Officer S. Russell as defendants. In that case, Mr. Mills alleged that he had medical problems associated with construction at the LCDC, claiming that these problems stemmed from exposure to asbestos. On Feb. 10, 2005, the Honorable Henry F. Floyd, U.S. District Judge, ordered that the LCDC be dismissed from the case. On March 28, 2006, Judge Floyd adopted the District Court's recommendation and granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants. The District Court noted that the evidence showed there was no known asbestos at the LCDC, and there was no evidence the Mr. Mills had any medical condition related to exposure to asbestos that required any form of treatment. Accordingly, the Court found that Mr. Mills' 14th Amendment claims regarding conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs failed. It was recommended that the defendants' motion be granted. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Denied in Westchester Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, denied the Westchester Fire Insurance Company and North River Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, in an asbestos-related insurance action filed against Treesdale, Inc. and its subsidiary Pittsburgh Metals Purifying Company. The case is styled Westchester Fire Insurance Company; North River Insurance Company, Plaintiffs v. Treesdale, Inc.; Pittsburgh Metals Purifying Company, Defendants. Treesdale, Inc.; Pittsburgh Metals Purifying Company, Counter-Claimants v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company; North River Insurance Company, Counter-Defendants. District Judge David Stewart Cercone entered judgment of Case No. 2:05cv1523 on May 2, 2008. Westchester and North River filed this action on Nov. 1, 2005. The amount in controversy exceeded the sum of US$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Count I sought reformation of the policies to include asbestos exclusions. Count II sought a declaratory judgment that the policies do not cover Underlying Claims, based either on the omitted asbestos exclusion or on the pollution exclusion. Count III sought reimbursement or a claim of unjust enrichment based on Westchester's defense of Treesdale and/or Pittsburgh Metals from certain Underlying Claims. On Feb. 21, 2006, Treesdale and Pittsburgh Metals filed an answer and counterclaims. On July 17, 2007, Westchester and North River filed a motion for summary judgment. After the motion was briefed, Treesdale and Pittsburgh Metals filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on Dec. 3, 2007 and the case was administratively closed on Dec. 7, 2007. On Feb. 14, 2008, Westchester and North River filed a motion to reopen the case, which was granted by order of Court on Feb. 19, 2008. Before the District Court for disposition was the motion for summary judgment, brought by Westchester and North River. The motion for summary judgment was denied. Christopher R. Carroll, Carroll, McNulty & Kull, Basking Ridge, N.J., Pittsburgh, represented Westchester Fire Insurance Company and North River Insurance Company. Kristin V. Gallagher, Carroll, McNulty & Kull, Basking Ridge, N.J., Kevin P. Lucas, Manion, McDonough & Lucas, Pittsburgh, represented Westchester Fire Insurance Company and North River Insurance Company. Beth Ann Slagle, Frederick J. Francis, Richard T. Victoria, Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, Mark D. Shepard, Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, Pittsburgh, represented Treesdale, Inc. and Pittsburgh Metals Purifying Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Ingwersen in Imo Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, reversed the ruling of the King County Superior Court, which granted summary judgment to Imo Industries Inc, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Robert Ingwersen. The case is styled Robert Ingwersen, Appellant, v. Imo Industries Inc, individually and as successor-in-interest to and f/k/a Delaval Turbine, Inc., Respondent, and IMO Delaval, Inc., and Warren Pumps, a Delaware corporation; Elliott Company d/b/a Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation; General Electric Company, a New York corporation; Viacom, Inc., Successor by Merger to CBS Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Viad Corporation, f/k/a The Dial Corporation, individually and as a successor-in- interest to Griscom-Russell Company, a Delaware corporation; and Warren Pumps, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. Judges Agid and Becker entered judgment of Case No. 59379-0-I on May 5, 2008. Mr. Ingwersen worked as a sheet metal worker at Lockheed Shipyard in 1962, 1963, 1966 to 1967, and again in 1984. He was diagnosed with asbestos related pleural disease and lung cancer. In 2005, he sued several companies in the shipbuilding industry seeking damages for his exposure to asbestos and his resulting lung cancer. Imo was one of those companies. Imo is the successor-in-interest to Delaval Turbine, Inc., a company that manufactured turbine engines and other ship parts. In the 1960s, Delaval turbine engines were insulated with asbestos-containing materials. The asbestos-containing insulation was required to protect sailors and shipyard workers from the heat of the engines and to extend the range of the ship. Although Delaval did not make asbestos, it sometimes provided the asbestos-containing insulation with the new engine. From 1963 to 1968, Delaval engines were installed on amphibious transport dock ships (LPDs) and insulated with asbestos at Lockheed. Imo argued that Mr. Ingwersen failed to present sufficient evidence that he was exposed to asbestos related to the insulation of equipment manufactured by Delaval. In his deposition, as well as his application to return to Lockheed in 1984, Mr. Ingwersen claimed to have worked on the first LSD (Landing Ship Dock) while at the shipyard in the 1960s. In 1981, the U.S. Navy awarded Lockheed the contract to build a new class of LSDs. In his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Mr. Ingwersen's counsel argued that he was likely mistaken about having worked on an LSD and, given the similarities between LSDs and LPDs, a reasonable person could conclude that Ingwersen had actually worked on the first LPD built at Lockheed during the 1960s, and thus likely was exposed to asbestos used to insulate that ship's Delaval turbine engine. The Appeals Court reversed and remanded the case. Janet L. Rice, Attorney at Law, Seattle, represented Robert Ingwersen. James Edward Horne, Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Pete, Seattle, Michael Edward Ricketts, Kingman, Peabody, Fitzharris, & Ringer P, Seattle, represented Imo Industries Inc, individually and as successor-in-interest to and f/k/a Delaval Turbine, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Weiss Suit Filed v. 48 Firms in Ill. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorrayne Weiss, a resident of Minnesota, on June 3, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 48 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Defendants include A.H. Bennett Company, Bondex International Inc, CBS Corporation, Chrysler LLC, Conwed Corp, Ford Motor Company, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, Hallstar Company, Honeywell International Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited, International Paper Company, John Crane Inc., MW Custom Papers Llc, MetLife, Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Philips Electronics North America Corporation, and Trane Inc. Ms. Weiss claims she was employed as a laborer from 1941 to 1943 at various locations and was self-employed from 1945 to 1971 remodeling, repairing, and maintaining rental properties located in Minneapolis. As a basis for filing her case in Madison County, which is 575 miles from Minneapolis, Ms. Weiss states that defendants' John Crane and Sprinkmann Sons Corp. are Illinois corporations which are "doing business" in Madison County. Ms. Weiss claims that during the course of her employment and during home and automotive repairs she was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products she was working with and around. The complaint states, "The plaintiff's exposure and inhalation, ingestion or absorption of the asbestos fibers was completely foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated by the defendants." Ms. Weiss claims the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people. According to Ms. Weiss, she first became aware that she suffered from mesothelioma on Sept. 9, 2007. Ms. Weiss alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos. Ms. Weiss also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Weiss claims she was exposed to fibers containing asbestos and developed a disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured her, the complaint states. She seeks damages to help pay for the cost of her treatment. Ms. Weiss seeks at least US$400,000 in damages for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other allegations. Nicholas Angelides of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Ms. Weiss. Case No. 08 L 480 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO, Groups Form Committee to Ban Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Public health advocates, led by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and The John McNamara Foundation, on June 5, 2008, announced the formation of the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America (CBAA), Centre Daily Times reports. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported mesothelioma deaths increased from 2004 to 2005 in "Health, United States, 2007." Since first tracked in 1980, mesothelioma deaths have increased every year. Linda Reinstein, Chairperson of the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America, said, "As recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 1976 the only way to prevent asbestos-related diseases is to ban its use, the CBAA supports language in a Committee Print before the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Environment & Hazardous Materials. "We are calling on the U.S. Congress and the President to do the right thing and ban asbestos in America and fund critical medical programs. Doctors and scientists agree: asbestos is a carcinogen and that there is no safe level of exposure. Preventing asbestos exposure is the only way to eliminate asbestos caused diseases. Recent ADAO product testing confirmed asbestos is still found in consumer products including toys." TC McNamara, Founder of The John McNamara Foundation, said, "Asbestos and the manufacturers of asbestos are responsible for creating the largest man made health crisis in this country. Asbestos went from being a miracle product to a serial killer which makes this legislation long overdue, but now is the time to ban asbestos in America." The Committee to Ban Asbestos in America (CBAA), formed by public health advocates including the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) and The John McNamara Foundation is dedicated to preventing asbestos exposure and eliminating asbestos-caused diseases. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), founded by asbestos victims and their families in 2004, seeks to give asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to help ensure that their rights are fairly represented and protected. The John McNamara Foundation, founded by the McNamara family, works to ban asbestos and offers support and assistance to mesothelioma patients and their families. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 40% Don't Know Exposure Source- Japan Study ---------------------------------------------------------------- A recent survey of Japan's Environment Ministry showed that 40 percent of people suffering from asbestos-related diseases do not know how they were exposed to asbestos, The Asahi Shimbun reports. This suggests the possibility that people do not have to live or work close to asbestos-related facilities to have inhaled asbestos particles. In its first nationwide survey on the causes of asbestos-related illnesses, the Ministry questioned 2,389 people recognized as asbestos victims in fiscal 2006, and 2,049 people responded. Victims who receive worker's accident compensation were not covered. Some 1,126 people, or 55 percent, said it was possible they were exposed to asbestos at their workplaces, while 63, or three percent, said they could have inhaled the substance from the clothes of family members who worked at places that used the material. Two percent, or 40 people, said they may have entered offices and other buildings that used asbestos as a coating material. The remaining 820 people, or 40 percent, said they had no idea how they came into contact with asbestos. The figure includes responses from bereaved family members of people who have died from asbestos-related diseases. The survey also showed most of the victims worked at manufacturing, construction, wholesale or retail jobs. However, there were 61 teachers and former teachers who were unlikely to have inhaled a substantial amount of the substance at their workplaces. The places where the respondents resided for the longest periods of their lives were scattered over more than 500 municipalities in all 47 prefectures. Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, has the largest concentration of victims, at 183, followed by Osaka's 113, Yokohama's 55 and Kobe's 44. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Sprayer's Death to Asbestos -------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest linked the death of former asbestos sprayer, 83-year- old Gordon Bartley, to exposure to asbestos, The Citizen reports. The inquest was told that Mr. Bartley once told his family that the insulation material never killed anybody. Mr. Bartley's daughter, Olwyn Craven, told the inquest her father started work for a Horwich, England-based firm of asbestos sprayers in 1961. His first job was at the telephone exchange, in Jubilee Street, Blackburn, and he remained with the firm until 1963. Mrs. Craven said, "We used to read about claims for asbestos- related disease and say he should put one in. He said asbestos never killed anyone and not to be so daft." The inquest heard that Mr. Bartley, of Northwood Nursing Home, Preston New Road, Blackburn, died of bronchopneumonia due to asbestos-related lung cancer. Coroner Michael Singleton recorded a verdict that death was due to the industrial disease of asbestosis. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Govt to Begin Talks on Rights of Victims ---------------------------------------------------------------- A U.K. Government consultation into a House of Lords ruling on asbestos-related condition, pleural plaques, will begin in June 2008, Post Online reports. Member of Parliament, Bridget Prentice, the undersecretary of state for justice, said the government is committed to finding redress for people with pleural plaques and expects to announce its decision by November 2008 in time for the Queen's speech. During an adjournment debate in parliament on June 4, 2008, Ms. Prentice said the consultation will review the effect of a House of Lords ruling which brought to an end the right to compensation for pleural plaques which has existed for more than 20 years. The consultation will consider options including restoring the right to compensation for pleural plaques. During the debate, Ms. Prentice said, "The consultation period will begin very soon, and I hope that as a result my honorable Friends will see serious action from the government, who are committed to helping people with pleural plaques and asbestos- related diseases." Barnsley West and Penistone MP, Mick Clapham urged for the Law Lords' decision to be reversed. He said, "I understand that a consultation exercise will be launched in the next couple of weeks, but I strongly suggest to the Minister, even at this eleventh hour, that she ... emphasize to her colleagues the need to reverse the Law Lords' decision. That is the best and cleanest way forward." Meanwhile, Blaydon MP David Anderson called for the consultation to be quick so those with pleural plaques would know finally where they stand. The House of Lords ruling was made following a court battle brought by the insurance industry. It is estimated the decision will save the industry GBP1.4 billion. Frederick Hewitt, 73, of Fellside, South Shields worked as an apprentice shipwright in the shipbuilding industry between 1950 and 1967 where he was exposed to asbestos. Mr. Hewitt discovered he had developed pleural plaques in January 2004 following a chest x-ray arranged by his GP. Since then he has suffered anxiety and is concerned about what may develop in the future as his neighbor who also worked in the shipyards died as a result of asbestos disease. Mr. Hewitt said he is pleased the government has decided to hold a consultation. He said, "When I heard the Law Lords' decision I thought it as a disgrace. I believe it is only right for the government to step in to find a way for pleural plaques sufferers to claim compensation." Thompsons Solicitors in Newcastle acted for pleural plaques sufferers in the House of Lords test case. Ian McFall, Head of asbestos policy at Thompsons said, "The House of Lords decision left thousands of working people disillusioned because they know their lungs have been marked by the asbestos they were wrongly exposed to and they have to live with the risk that some day they may develop a fatal illness. The consultation comes as the trade union Unite and Thompsons Solicitors are involved in another test case in the High Court to safeguard compensation for mesothelioma sufferers and their families. The nine-week court battle, being dubbed the 'trigger issue,' began on June 3, 2008. The court decision is not expected until the autumn. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4th District Court Urged to Review Decision ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center urges the Florida 4th District Court to carefully review The Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Act to better serve individuals who may have been unknowingly exposed to asbestos and may one day lose their life to mesothelioma, TransWorldNews reports. These individuals will leave behind families who may be unable to cover medical costs, funeral expenses and even day-to-day expenses for those living without a primary provider. A Florida Court ruled that The Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Act cannot be applied to asbestos-related cases that were brought before the court prior to 2005, when the act was put into effect. The act was put into place in an effort to "muddy the waters" for Florida citizens who wished to pursue litigation related to asbestos exposure, many of whom were suffering from asbestosis at the time they filed suit. A Florida 4th District Court judge ruled that the procedures for handling asbestos-related cases prior to the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Act were not thorough. Plaintiffs who brought a case before the court in years preceding the new procedures were not required to demonstrate proof of malignancy (cancer), but were only asked to provide "proof" that they were suffering from complications as a result of asbestos exposure. Since the act was passed, all plaintiffs must provide verification, specifically medical records notarized by a physician � in an effort to validate their claims for the court. The court's decision came after review of a 1988 case which stated that there is a specific dormant period between exposure and onset of asbestosis. The case also established the latency period between exposure and development of mesothelioma to be 20 to 40 years, and, during this latent period, it is therefore impossible to demonstrate "proof of malignancy." Further complicating the situation is the reality that many of those diagnosed with asbestosis will one day develop mesothelioma. The Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Act has created a grave disadvantage for many citizens due to the rigorous suit requirements. Upon exposure to asbestos, it can take up to 40 years before an individual will demonstrate any biological effects related to pleural mesothelioma. Upon receiving a diagnosis of mesothelioma, an individual will generally survive for an additional one to two years before the disease takes their life, leaving very little time to file suit and obtain any reparation for the victim and their surviving family. The Florida act works to further complicate the process for individuals who are hoping to receive the damages that they and their family deserve. The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center has been regarded as the web's leading informational resource for information regarding mesothelioma and various mesothelioma treatment options. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Find Delays Demolition of Days Inn ---------------------------------------------------------------- The demolition of the Days Inn on Wayne Memorial Drive, Goldsboro, N.C., has been delayed because of asbestos problems, Goldsboro News-Argus reports. The demolition was supposed to take place early in June 2008. Chief Building Inspector Ed Cianfarra said that does not mean the motel will be there for long. The owner, Mark H. Daley III, told Mr. Cianfarra he had a letter stating that all of the asbestos had already been removed from the building. Mr. Cianfarra said when he read the letter, it did not quite state what Mr. Daley thought it did. Mr. Cianfarra said, "Many years ago, prior to establishing the current asbestos abatement program, there was some asbestos removed, but not all of it." The letter, written several years back, was from a hygienist who said the asbestos abatement requirements were filled, Mr. Cianfarra added. Since then, state mandates on asbestos abatement have changed. Now, the state does not just go by what a hygienist says. Mr. Cianfarra said, "They have to take samples. Everything had to be tested again." The test results brought bad news. He added, "The building is full of it." An asbestos abatement contract has been secured by Mr. Daley, Mr. Cianfarra said, and after removal and certification from the state, the building will come down. The Days Inn was destroyed by a windstorm in August 2007, and shortly after, Mr. Cianfarra declared the structure a "total loss." The City Council officially condemned the building in February 2008. A "land for sale" sign appears on a fence surrounding the property on Wayne Memorial Drive, and the asking price is US$1.1 million for nearly 3.3 acres. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Favors Defendants in Reiter Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which favored appellees in an asbestos-related lawsuit styled, Catherine L. Reiter, et al., v. ACandS, Inc., et al. Judges Patrick L. Woodward, James P. Salmon, and Raymond G. Thieme, Jr. entered judgment of Case No. 670, Sept.Term 2006 on May 6, 2008. Appellants, individually and as the Personal Representatives of three deceased former employees of Bethlehem Steel Corporation's Sparrows Point, Md. facility, appealed from a decision of the Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of appellees Eaton Corporation, successor in interest to Cutler-Hammer, Inc., Pneumo Abex LLC, and Square D Company. The complaints alleged that William H. Johnson, William A. Reiter, and Harold R. Williams suffered from lung cancer as a result of occupational exposure to appellee's asbestos- containing crane brakes. Appellants are: Charlotte J. Johnson, Personal Representative of the Estate of William H. Johnson; Catherine L. Reiter, Personal Representative of the Estate of William A. Reiter; and Arlene Williams, Personal Representative of the Estate of Harold R. Williams. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Defendants in Jacobs -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, ruled in favor of lawyer William K. Tapscott, Jr. and his then employer Baron & Budd, P.C., in a lawsuit over asbestos awards filed by Karin Jacobs, Patria Jacobs, and Joeann Frost. The case is styled Karin Jacobs, Patria Jacobs, and Joeann Frost, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. William K. Tapscott, Jr. and Baron & Budd, P.C., Defendants-Appellees. Circuit Judges Davis and Southwick and District Judge Clark entered judgment of Case No. 07-10558 on May 8, 2008. This was an an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appellants in this case challenged the dismissal of their suit pretrial in an order granting a motion for summary judgment (dismissing some of the claims) and a later judgment as a matter of law (dismissing the remaining claims). The plaintiffs-appellants are the heirs of Carl Jacobs, who died of mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure. Before the June 1999 trial setting of the asbestos litigation, the appellees negotiated settlements with the asbestos defendants for a total of US$2.4 to US$2.5 million. After the settlement was agreed to, one of the defendants withdrew its offer. Other defendants filed bankruptcy proceedings. As a result, counsel collected US$2.1 million of the settlement sum. Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with counsels' service. Plaintiffs sued their attorneys on theories of negligence, misrepresentation, gross negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court granted the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims except two breach of fiduciary duty claims. Based on the Appeals Court's review of the record and applicable law, it agreed with the district court that summary judgment was appropriate on plaintiffs' claims of negligence, misrepresentation, gross negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Appeals Court agreed with the district court that: (1) plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they were damaged from counsels' alleged negligence and misrepresentation; (2) plaintiffs failed to state a claim predicated on gross negligence; and (3) plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was an impermissibly fractured malpractice claim. In addition, plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims were either impermissibly fractured malpractice claims or were barred because they were not raised in plaintiffs' original complaint. The Appeals Court agreed that the court correctly granted summary judgment on the claims covered by that order. The two remaining prongs of plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claim were heard by a jury. The jury rejected the first claim and rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs on the second claim, awarding them US$129,000. Thereafter on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, the district court dismissed the second claim, rendering judgment for defendants notwithstanding the jury's verdict. Jeffrey S. Lynch, Dallas, represented Karin Jacobs, Patria Jacobs, and Joeann Frost. Robert Martin Greenberg, Robert Eugene Motsenbocker, Kerens, Tex., represented William K. Tapscott, Jr. and Baron & Budd, P.C. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors U.S. Steel in Gomcsak Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 9th District, Lorain County, upheld the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, Ohio, which ruled in favor of U.S. Steel Corporation, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Phyllis Gomcsak on behalf of her late husband, Norman Gomcsak. The case is styled Norman Gomcsak, et al., Appellants v. U.S. Steel Corporation, Appellee. Judges Moore, Whitmore, and Dickinson entered judgment of Case No. 07CA009208 on May 12, 2008. This case involved the death Mr. Gomcsak, who worked as an electrician/motor inspector at the U.S. Steel Mill in Lorain, Ohio, from 1942 to 1984. His work put him in close contact with asbestos products. In February 2000, Mr. Gomcsak sought medical attention after a sudden onset of symptoms occurred. He died on March 10, 2000. The death certificate listed seven different causes of death. However, the parties stipulated "[t]hat the cause of [Decedent's] death was lung cancer[.]" Following Mr. Gomcsak's death, Mrs. Gomcsak filed a workers' compensation claim, alleging that her husband had died of asbestos-related cancer. The Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation granted Mrs. Gomcsak occupation disease death benefits. U.S. Steel appealed from the Bureau's decision. The case went to trial on May 31, 2007. The following stipulation was read to the jury: "That during [Decedent's] career at U.S. Steel he worked around asbestos and asbestos containing products[.]" The issue remaining for the jury was whether Mr. Gomcsak's lung cancer was caused by the exposure to asbestos while he worked at U.S. Steel. Among other witnesses, Mrs. Gomcsak presented testimony from four expert witnesses: Dr. Joseph Sopko, Dr. Paul Venizelos, Dr. James McMahon, and Dr. James Martin. U.S. Steel presented the testimony of one expert witness, Dr. John Murphy. Prior to the trial, U.S. Steel filed a motion in limine as to the scope of Dr. Martin's testimony. The trial court granted U.S. Steel's motion and limited Dr. Martin's testimony to the report he created in 1992. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury unanimously found in favor of U.S. Steel. Gomcsak timely appealed this decision. Robert P. Sweeney, Attorney at Law, represented Phyllis Gomcsak. Robert C. McClelland, Attorney at Law, represented U.S. Steel Corporation. Timothy McGrail, Assistant Ohio Attorney General, represented the Administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Class Bid for Hospital Suit v. Grace Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald denied without prejudice the request for class certification of Anderson Memorial Hospital, on behalf of a class of individuals or property owners whose properties have been damaged or allegedly damaged by asbestos-containing products manufactured by W. R. Grace & Co. According to Judge Fitzgerald, certification of the class would needlessly prolong the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases, which were filed nearly seven years ago and which has been hard fought every step of the way by all constituent bodies. Judge Fitzgerald pointed out that Anderson Memorial failed to meet the class certification requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "With respect to Rule 23(a), we address only numerosity as we find that to be dispositive," Judge Fitzgerald explained. She said that numerosity requires a finding that a class representative be appointed only if joinder of all members of the class would be impracticable. "Impracticability does not mean impossibility but only the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of the class," Judge Fitzgerald clarified. "In this case, the property damage claim creditor universe is known because the notice of the bar date was so extensive there are not enough claims left toconstitute a numerous base in the first place." Of about 3,000 claims originally filed by Speights, & Runyan, Anderson Memorial's counsel, only 158 remained when the matters were briefed in August 2007, more than 80 of the claims were not part of the putative class, and only one was a South Carolina claim, Judge Fitzgerald noted. "If we follow the lead of the South Carolina court which limited class certification to South Carolina buildings, there would be only one claimant," Judge Fitzgerald said. "This court cannot conclude that one claim satisfies the numerosity requirement." Judge Fitzgerald added that even at 158 claims, the number is manageable in a bankruptcy context. If the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met, Anderson Memorial must meet one of the Rule 23(b) standards before a class can be certified, Judge Fitzgerald held. Under Rule 23(b), a claimant must show either that: (a) Prosecution of separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the opposing party or which would be dispositive of the interests of non-parties or would impair or impede the non-parties' ability to protect their interests; (b) The party opposing the class has acted or refused to act in a way "generally applicable to the class" so that final relief with respect to the class as a whole is appropriate; or (c) The court finds that questions of law or fact common to the class members predominate over questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is a superior method for the "fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." Judge Fitzgerald said that regarding the first and second factors, there has been no showing of a risk of inconsistent adjudications or that adjudications with respect to individual class members would be dispositive of the interests of other claimants nor have the Debtors engaged in conduct in their bankruptcy cases that would make class relief appropriate. In addition, Judge Fitzgerald noted that there have been objections to claims, which have been vigorously contested and the Anderson claimants' rights have not been affected by the absence of a class action mechanism. Thus, Judge Fitzgerald said the only relevant criterion is the third factor. She, however, ruled that a class action is not a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy with respect to the claims sought to be included in Anderson Memorial's request. Anderson Memorial asserts that common issues exist like whether: -- asbestos-containing surfacing materials are hazardous; -- asbestos fibers are released under forseeable uses; -- the Debtors tested for fiber release potential; and -- duties to building owners were owed or breached. Judge Fitzgerald explained that a class action format is not conducive to resolution of issues like whether a Grace product is in place in any claimant's building or whether a specific state's statute of limitations has run because the questions cannot be resolved without reference to each claim or to smaller sets of claims. Furthermore, Judge Fitzgerald noted that a class action is not a superior method of resolving the claims objections in the Debtors' bankruptcy cases because claims objections have been and continue to be addressed on a claimant- by-claimant basis or in smaller groups of claims with related issues or facts, and few remain to be decided. She added that the ultimate issue cannot be decided without reference to the bar date. "As to unfiled claims, the class action process sought by Anderson Memorial would operate to negate the bar date," Judge Fitzgerald said. She further explained that the request for class certification proposes an opt-out election, which would defeat the purpose of certifying a class in the context of the Debtors' bankruptcy cases. A claimant who did not file a timely claim but who would be a member of the class if certified could opt out of the class and then assert an independent late claim, thereby effecting another end run around the bar date, Judge Fitzgerald said. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 159; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Responds to Bar Date Objection --------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to deny The Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants' request for an evidentiary hearing with respect to the proposed bar date notice program. On behalf of the Debtors, Laura Davis Jones, at Pachulski Stang Ziegler & Jones LLP, in Wilmington, Del., says that the PD Committee's request is nothing more than a "flimsy delay tactic" aimed at derailing the Debtors' Chapter 11 plan process. "Now that the Debtors have reached a consensus with the majority of their creditors, deliberate progress toward a prompt confirmation hearing is the paramount concern for most of the constituencies and should be the priority for the cases as a whole," Ms. Jones contends. In addition, Ms. Jones presents that: -- The proposed bar date and notice program has in substance, been in existence and subject to analysis for literally seven years; -- The Debtors' most recent requests for approval of a ZAI bar date and notice program was made more than nine weeks ago. In that time, the PD Committee never filed a counter affidavit to the Debtors' expert respecting matters particular to the Debtors' program, nor did they request discovery; and -- The hearing on the matter was set more than five weeks ago and no timely effort was made by the PD Committee in those five weeks to engage the Debtors in a discussion on discovery or cross examination of the Debtors' expert. The Debtors also filed with the Court amended ZAI Bar Date exhibits to include: -- Black lined versions of the proof of claim form and instructions for completing the form to clarify that ZAI Claims are located in the United States and Canada. The instructions were also modified to make clear that the claim forms may be completed in English, French, or Inuktitut; -- Blacklined versions of the notices of the bar date to account for the omitted reference to Canada. The Bar Date Notice for known claimants and the publication notices have also been revised to make clear that homeowners who either have a claim or who may in the future have a ZAI claim must file a proof of claim by the bar date to preserve their legal rights against the Debtors; and -- A supplemental notice of the Canadian notice program to address objections raised by the Canadian ZAI Claimants that aboriginal persons in Canada needed notice more specifically tailored to them. Judge Gross, the settlement judge for the ZAI Claims, told the Court that all parties-in-interest attended and actively participated in the mediation held on May 12, 2008. He, however, said that the May 12 mediation did not result in a settlement of any of the pending ZAI Claims issues even after he made additional efforts post-mediation to encourage the parties to settle. Judge Gross indicated that he is willing and able, at anytime, to resume mediation efforts and will continue to communicate with the parties. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 159; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov't. Opposes Court Review of Grace Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Government opposed W.R. Grace & Co.'s request for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 9th Circuit's ruling on the reinstatement of conspiracy charges relating to Grace's vermiculite mining operations in Libby, Mont., The Billings Gazette reported. "There . . . is a strong . . . need to prevent any additional, unnecessary delay of the trial," the Gazette quoted papers filed with the Supreme Court by the Government. "Some witnesses and many victims . . . are dying from mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other asbestos-related diseases . . . As time passes, more witnesses will be unavailable to testify, and fewer victims will be able to attend the trial." If the Supreme Court decides to review the Appellate Court's reinstatement ruling, the earliest time it could do so would be in October 2008, the newspaper noted. As previously reported, the Government obtained an indictment in 2005 charging Grace and seven of its former executives with criminal conduct arising from the company's Libby operations. The indictment accuses Grace and its officials of conspiracy to violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency proceedings, violations of the federal Clean Air Act, and obstruction of justice. Grace related that the Government asserted in the indictment that Grace could be subject to fines in an amount equal to twice the after-tax profit earned from its Libby operations or twice the alleged loss suffered by Libby victims, plus additional amounts for restitution to victims. The indictment alleges that Grace's after-tax profits were US$140 million. From 1963 to 1992, Grace mined vermiculite ore in Libby. Libby residents subsequently complained of serious health problems in connection with Grace's vermiculite operations. In its form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in March 2007, Grace said it expects that legal fees for its defense in the indictment and that of its current and former employees could range from US$3 million to US$4 million per quarter. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 159; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Locals Want Apology From Electric Co ---------------------------------------------------------------- Residents of Latrobe Valley, in Victoria, Australia, demand an apology for 146,000 workers and their families exposed to asbestos by the former State Electricity Commission, The Age reports. Vicky Hamilton, head of the Gippsland asbestos-related disease support group, GARDS, said, "The Pope apologized for the pedophile priests, Kevin Rudd apologized to the stolen generations, now it is John Brumby's turn." The use of asbestos was banned in Victoria in 2003. However, it was too late for 146,000 employees and contractors who worked in SEC plants from 1921 to the 1980s. Since 1976, the State Government insurance authority has paid AUD52.6 million to former SEC employees. Another AUD369 million is expected to be paid out by the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority to former employees before the asbestos epidemic ends. "The SEC knew about the asbestos. The Government knew about the asbestos. They did nothing to protect their workers and their families. Carpenters and builders clad the SEC workers' homes in asbestos sheeting, their wives shook dust from their overalls, and children hugged dusty "snowmen" after work. The enduring tragedy of mass asbestos exposure among the people of Morwell, Yallourn, Moe, Newborough, Traralgon and surrounds is that families are stricken through generations. Grandfathers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters and grandchildren live and die with the fiber's lethal legacy. Now 1,000 former power industry workers are taking part in a study funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Latrobe Valley Power Industry Cohort study, conducted by the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, hopes to identify markers in the blood of asbestos-exposed individuals to indicate their risk of developing diseases such as asbestosis, mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer. It is predicted that 22,000 Australians will die of mesothelioma before death rates peak around 2020. Asbestos-related lung cancers are expected to claim another 44,000 lives. The Latrobe Valley community is skeptical about the Government's conflicting roles as the employer responsible for their asbestos contamination and the protector of public health. Reconciliation between the Government and the community has been hindered by the SEC's initial denials of asbestos hazards, lack of consultation, the suppression of information and bitterly fought compensation claims, according to University of Melbourne research fellow Associate Professor Tony LaMontagne. Professor LaMontagne said, "Without some mutually acceptable way of acknowledging past wrongs, ways forward will be hampered." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA & EPA Urged to Improve Info Dispersal --------------------------------------------------------------- A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office recommended that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop time frames to more quickly deliver information, including asbestos-related, to the public, Occupational Hazards reports. The GAO analysis revealed that it took OSHA and EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) more than five and three years, respectively, to release guidances, brochures and other communication products addressing the potential hazards of exposure to asbestos in automotive brakes. OSHA officials twice decided to not release drafts before the final posting because they needed more data to understand how pervasive asbestos is in brake products and to avoid causing unnecessary alarm, GAO said. And while it took OSHA longer to release its final product, the OPPTS process incorporated more steps to obtain input from external parties. The report read, "It is important that communication products be issued in a timely manner. Timeliness is but one of a range of performance indicators that agencies may use to measure whether they are achieving their goals, as managers balance competing priorities. But timeliness seems especially relevant once an agency has determined that there is a need to communicate information about how people can protect themselves from health and safety hazards to which they might be exposed." GAO developed the report after "some parties" raised concerns that workers and general public were not aware that asbestos was still present in both old and replacement automotive parts. A series of events, news articles and research studies refocused attention on the issue of asbestos hazards in automotive brakes and prompted both agencies to disseminate information to the public. In addition to recommending that OSHA and OPPTS develop time frames or benchmarks to ensure they deliver the products in a timely fashion, GAO also recommended that both agencies ensure that their key general processes for preparing communication products are documented and made available on their respective Web sites. To read the full report, visit: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08265.pdf. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railton Owners Predict Increase in Diseases ---------------------------------------------------------------- The owners of the Railton Cement Factory in Tasmania, Australia, say that the number of people suffering asbestos-related diseases will rise, ABC News reports. The factory made asbestos building products from 1947 until 1986. Cement Australia spokesman, Stephen Brass, said, "The asbestos- related diseases have a very long period of dormancy, if you like, and we're probably only just starting to move into the peak of that." Seventy-two-year-old Ray Williams worked at the factory and now has asbestosis. Former factory worker Ray Williams, who has asbestosis, said, "If they come forward now and they get their payout - if they're entitled to one - that gives them a chance to enjoy the payout while they're still able to." Cement Australia has so far made compensation payments to 36 people. The number of new mesothelioma cases in Tasmania has risen dramatically in the past decade. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lower Hutt, N.Z. Railway Station to Reopen --------------------------------------------------------------- A commuter rail station in Lower Hutt, New Zealand, will reopen before the end of July 2008 after a temporary closure after traces of asbestos were found, Radio New Zealand reports. Testing at Epuni station has found asbestos in some parts of the station. However, all air tests have proven to be negative. Tranz Metro says a new shelter will be built after cleanup work is completed. Passengers will be able to catch trains as normal. Tranz Metro says Epuni is one of its oldest stations. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brent Coon Reaches 14 Settlements in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- The Brent Coon & Associates Law Office has reached 14 settlements in asbestos-related cases filed in Texas courts, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Ten of the settlements came from the lawsuit, Helen Adams et al vs. AC&S et al, originally filed in 2004 by the Brent Coon & Associates law firm on behalf of more than 2,000 plaintiffs against around 400 corporations. The remaining four settlements came from a much older lawsuit, Anderson Betty vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., first filed in 1998. The suits allege the plaintiffs, or their deceased family members, were "exposed to large quantities of asbestos or asbestos-related products from the defendants, resulting in a variety of respiratory and other diseases." All the suits' plaintiffs allege the defendants were negligent for failing to adequately warn of the dangers of asbestos exposure and failure to test products before entering them into the stream of commerce. 3M Corporation is also named as a defendant for providing mask products to plaintiffs that did not provide adequate respiratory protection. The plaintiffs were suing for past and future pain and suffering, past and future mental anguish, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement, past and future physical impairment, medical bills and funeral bills in the event of death. The settlement amounts were not disclosed. These cases are: E-167892-Q Ernest Harry Best vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al E-167892-AH Joseph Campbell vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al E-167892-AL William Chandler vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al E-167892-BA Robert Douglas vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al E-167892-BQ Deilma Guthrie vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al E-167892-BR James Harden, Sr. vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al E-167892-BU Mattie D. Hayes vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al E-167892-EI Robert E. Myers vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al E-167892-FF Richard P. Bohanon vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al E-167892-FS John Fox vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al E-159526-AE Danny W. Parks, et ux vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas E-159526-AV Margery Sargent, et al vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas E-159526-BC W. E. Barkley, et al vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas E-159526-BF Ruth Ferlito, et al vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2,000 Pupils Evacuated from Belfast Schools ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nearly 2,000 pupils, on June 9, 2008, were evacuated from two Belfast, Northern Ireland schools when a fire broke out in the former Bass Ireland Ltd brewery, RTE News reports. Fears of asbestos particles in heavy smoke billowing from the old plant prompted the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Fire & Rescue Service to recommend a shutdown of the schools nearby on the Glen Road. More than 1,100 pupils at St. Mary Christian Brothers Grammar School were sent home, followed by 600 from the La Salle school. The Glen Road was closed to traffic for hours and residents living in the area were urged to keep their doors and windows shut tight. Over 70 firefighters from all over Belfast were involved in dealing with the fire in the three-story building on the Glen Road. Ten fire vehicles from Belfast plus a specialist aerial appliance together with Operational Support Unit and Command Support Unit from Lisburn attended. SDLP West Belfast Assembly Member Alex Attwood expressed his concern about the fire. He said that the age of the Bass Ireland building and the possible asbestos risk means that the emergency services must take all precautions to protect workers, residents and schoolchildren. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Heater Exposure Linked to Clerk's Death ------------------------------------------------------------ An inquest at the Walthamstow Coroner's Court heard that the death of retired clerical worker, Joan Squires, was linked to asbestos, Your local Guardian reports. The 92-year-old Mrs. Squires, of Ilford, London, England, died from mesothelioma on April 8, 2008. She had never worked in factories and had not knowingly come into contact with asbestos. However, five years ago, Mrs. Squires' son John, an electrical engineer, also died from mesothelioma at the age of 59. Mrs. Squires' other son Howard told the court that his mother and brother may have inhaled asbestos fibers while dismantling and fixing a storage heater in their Wensleydale Avenue home in the 1970s. On March 18, 2008, Mrs. Squires was admitted to Whipps Cross Hospital with breathing difficulties. Following a scan, doctors noticed a gray shading on her lung and she was later diagnosed with the incurable cancer. Mrs. Squires was then transferred to the Margaret Centre hospice where she died. As well as the storage heater theory, Mr. Squires said asbestos may have got on John's clothes at work and his mother could have breathed in the fibers as she cleaned them. Although asbestos bodies were not actually found in Mrs. Squires' lungs, Dr. Stearns was "satisfied" that Mrs. Squires had died as a result of exposure to asbestos. However, as the coroner was unsure where exactly Mrs. Squires contracted the disease, Dr. Stearns recorded a narrative verdict, which is simply a record of the circumstances surrounding the death. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labour Councilors Slam Wear Valley Probe ------------------------------------------------------------- According to Labour councilors, an inquiry into asbestos found at Woodhouse Close Leisure Centre, in Wear Valley, County Durham, England, has been "disgracefully" used as a "cheap, political football," The Wear Valley Mercury reports. A 39-page document investigating the management of the toxic materials found at Woodhouse Close was published, but councilors were more concerned with the way it may have been used to score political points in the run-up to the elections. The asbestos was discovered in the plant room in 2001, but it was five years later staff at the center were informed of its existence after two workmen blew the whistle. The council was fined GBP18,000 for the incident and the inquiry was set-up to investigate how it happened. At a full council meeting on June 5, 2008, councilors accepted the report which blamed the incident on "endemic failures in the authority as a whole," but made no comment on the report itself instead criticizing each other for the way in which it was handled. Councilor Neil Stonehouse, Labour group leader and former leader of the council said, "This report is very important at returning public confidence in this authority. It does not make pretty reading and it is quite clear there were serious operational failings, but the public can rest assured that the current system is sound and can be confident that we have taken appropriate steps to ensure this never happens again." Councilor Stonehouse slammed the Liberal Democrat councilors for publicizing "fallacious and deceitful lies" that the report had been deliberately delayed by Labor, saying, "It is not acceptable behavior and is entirely regrettable. "It is disgraceful that this report has been used as a political football to suit political ends." In April 2008, six Liberal Democrat and Independent councilors demanded a public meeting to "consider the implications arising out of the unwarranted, unreasonable and unacceptable delays" in the publication of inquiry results. The meeting was canceled by council officers before the election over fears it could be used for political gain, and the request has now been withdrawn. A vote of no confidence in the former leader Neil Stonehouse and his deputy Charlie Kay which had been made after Lib Dem councilors complained they had not been informed the council was being taken to court was also withdrawn. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Pattullo Bridge in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- The asphalt bridge deck of the Pattullo Bridge, in British Columbia, Canada, was found to be laced with asbestos, surreyleader.com reports. The asbestos was mixed in with the asphalt and laid down on top of the original concrete deck during the 1980s. It is complicating TransLink's latest efforts to repave the bridge and better assess its structural safety. Now classified as a contaminated material, the asphalt cannot just be ground up as it would in most other road projects lest it become a hazardous airborne dust. Instead it must be kept wet and be removed in sealed containers as part of specialized handling and disposal requirements that have kicked in. TransLink tried to find a company to do the work in the fall of 2007 but received no serious bids. It is now trying again with a revised request for proposals. The asphalt top coat is preventing TransLink engineers from getting a good look at the concrete bridge deck to assess its integrity. Susan Hollingshead, TransLink's manager of bridges and roads, said, "We can't really get a good sense of the condition of the concrete if we can't look at it and test it." TransLink had hoped to ban trucks from using the bridge's center lanes once a way could be found to improve how southbound trucks merge from McBride Avenue. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Montreal School Board to Eliminate Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission Scolaire de Montreal (CSDM), Montreal's French School Board, plans major renovations in the summer of 2008 to eliminate asbestos from two dozen buildings, cbc.ca reports. The board would not specify which schools have been targeted, but indicated the mineral is present in some corridor walls and stairwells. Currently there is no immediate danger to students, said CSDM spokesman Alain Perron, in a French interview with CBC News. He said, "There are no asbestos [fibers] in suspension in the air." Four of the two dozen schools with higher than average levels of asbestos will be renovated this summer, Mr. Perron said. Work on the remaining schools will begin sometime in the near future, with the goal of being completed by 2011, at a cost of about CDN$5 million, he added. Construction work should not affect class schedules, but some students could be moved if necessary, said CSDM spokesman Patrice Lavoie. The Quebec Ministry of Health has conducted tests on the schools and concluded there was no immediate health danger. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Map Shows Portions of Australia w/ Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- An article published in Environmental Geology, an international journal of earth sciences, indicates parts of eastern Australia underlain by rocks with the right geological conditions to host asbestos, Wikinews reports. According to the author, Macquarie University researcher Marc Hendrickx, there is good news and bad news. He said, "The good news is that potential asbestos bearing rocks account for only 0.2 percent of the land area of eastern Australia and most of the outcrops are in remote areas." The main occurrence of potential asbestos bearing rocks in eastern Australia is in serpentinite that occurs in narrow outcrop belts in all the eastern states. Other potential hosts include altered ultramafic rocks in central New South Wales, and metamorphic rocks in northern Tasmania, western NSW and western Queensland. Mr. Hendrickx indicates "The bad news is that some of the areas have been unwittingly disturbed, mainly by using asbestos bearing rocks as a source of material for road construction. "In two cases, in QLD and NSW this has resulted in affected roads undergoing remediation costing millions of dollars. Another example in Orange in central NSW involved 60,000 cubic meters of rock being crushed for aggregate during the development of a new business park before the asbestos content was realized. Air quality monitoring undertaken in similar situations elsewhere indicates exposure to low levels of respirable asbestos fibers is possible from disturbance of asbestos in rocks and soils in such circumstances." Mr. Hendrickx suggests the specialized geological maps published as part of the study will help planning authorities and land owners avoid future "accidental" or unplanned disturbance of asbestos bearing rocks. Mr Hendrickx's research, in the Graduate School of the Environment at Macquarie University in Australia, hopes to ascertain the geology of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in eastern and South Australia and aims to discover if it has caused cases of the cancer mesothelioma in Australia. The article "Naturally occurring asbestos in eastern Australia: a review of geological occurrence, disturbance and mesothelioma risk" can be accessed online from Environmental Geology, a Springer publication. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Widow in Coman Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 7th District, Mahoning County, upheld the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division of Mahoning County, Ohio, which favored widow Gloria Coman, in a lawsuit involving asbestos filed by her daughter Victoria Lee Coman. The case is styled In The Matter of the Estate of David L. Coman, Deceased, Gloria Coman, Appellee, v. Victoria Lee Coman, Appellant. Judges Donofrio, Vukovich, and DeGenaro entered judgment of Case No. 07-MA-181 on May 7, 2008. David Coman died on Oct. 20, 2002, from lung cancer, allegedly brought on as the result of his exposure to asbestos. He was survived by his wife, Gloria Coman, and two children, Victoria Coman and David Coman, Jr. David Coman's last will and testament, which devised all of his property to his wife, was admitted to probate on Sept. 13, 2006. Gloria Coman was appointed executrix of the estate. On May 31, 2007, an application to approve partial settlement and distribution of wrongful death and survival claims was filed and a hearing for the application was set for July 10, 2007. Victoria Coman filed a request for a continuance. A South Carolina resident at the time, Victoria Coman claimed that she was scheduled to be in court in two separate cases on July 10, 2007 and July 12, 2007 in the "Carolina's." The probate court denied the requested continuance. On July 6, 2007, Victoria Coman filed a second request to which she attached proof of the conflicting dates. The probate court conducted a hearing on the application on July 10, 2007. In an entry filed the following day, the court approved the partial settlement. However, the court also granted Victoria Coman's second request for continuance as to the distribution of the net proceeds of the partial settlement and set that matter for hearing on Sept. 4, 2007. Victoria Coman requested a continuance of the Sept. 4, 2007 hearing. The probate court denied her request. The distribution hearing proceeded on Sept. 4, 2007, before a magistrate. Gloria Coman and her sister, Shirley Murphy testified. On Sept. 5, 2007, the magistrate issued a decision recommending that all of the net proceeds from the wrongful death claim be distributed to Gloria Coman as the surviving spouse. David Coman, Jr. waived any interest in the proceeds and consented to them being distributed to his mother. On Sept. 13, 2007, Victoria Coman filed a "MOTION TO RECONSIDER/OBJECT AND CHARGE BOTH WITNESSES WITH PERJURY." In the motion, she claimed that she returned to Ohio, found a job, and rented an apartment to care for her father during his illness. Victoria Coman maintained that her mother and Shirley Murphy had committed perjury when they testified that she had a poor relationship with her father, visited him only once or twice before he died, and that they argued. Victoria Coman requested a "substantial" portion of the proceeds and asked the court that Gloria Coman and Shirley Murphy be charged with perjury. On Sept. 17, 2007, the probate court denied Victoria Coman's motion. This appeal followed. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the probate court. Victoria Lee Coman, Shallotte, N.C., pro se. Mark Belinky, Youngstown, Ohio, represented Gloria Coman. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Weyerhaeuser Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, issued split rulings in litigation involving asbestos, more specifically attorneys' fees, filed by The Weyerhaeuser Company against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. The Weyerhaeuser Company, Plaintiff, v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant, and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Third- Party Plaintiff, v. General Insurance Company of America; Northwestern National Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Old Republic Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendants. District Judge Marsha J. Pecham entered judgment of Case No. C06-1189MJP on May 12, 2008. This case arose from 27 claims asserted against Weyerhaeuser alleging liability for bodily injury. The claims related to asbestos exposures that spanned a number of years. Fireman's Fund issued insurance policies to Weyerhaeuser from 1954 to 1978. The policies all provided the same bodily injury coverage -- Fireman's Fund agreed to pay on behalf of Weyerhaeuser all sums Weyerhaeuser became obligated to pay for bodily injury damages, sustained by any person and arising out of Weyerhaeuser's business operations. In the 1980s, Weyerhaeuser and Fireman's Fund entered into an informal arrangement where Weyerhaeuser assumed control of defense and indemnity payments on all asbestos bodily injury claims. This case was initiated on Aug. 18, 2006, when Weyerhaeuser complained that Fireman's Fund refused to reimburse Weyerhaeuser over US$1 million in attorneys' fees and costs for past and current asbestos claims. Weyerhaeuser alleged that Fireman's Fund refused to pay unless and until Weyerhaeuser agreed to a defense cost sharing agreement. Weyerhaeuser also alleged that Fireman's Fund refused to pay the full indemnity amounts. On Jan. 26, 2007, Weyerhaeuser moved for summary judgment on all of its claims. The Court denied the motion and directed the parties to meet and exchange the appropriate documents to complete the file on each claim so that Fireman's Fund could begin reimbursing Weyerhaeuser. At oral argument, the parties indicated that they had already scheduled a meeting for July 10, 2007, at which they planned to resolve some of the remaining issues on their claims. The Court directed the parties to use that meeting to go through each of the remaining claims and to identify remaining legal issues. On May 24, 2007, the parties produced a stipulated plan for their July 10, 2007 meeting and for preparations for the meeting. Weyerhaeuser moved for Olympic Steamship attorneys' fees. Acknowledging that it did not prevail on every issue in this case, Weyerhaeuser sought a portion of its fees. Under Olympic Steamship, Weyerhaeuser is entitled to some of its fees in bringing this action because it was required to litigate certain legal issues to obtain the benefit of its insurance contract with Fireman's Fund. Weyerhaeuser moved for summary judgment on the issue of attorneys' fees and Fireman's Fund filed cross-motions. Weyerhaeuser and Fireman's Fund filed responses. The Court granted in part and denied in part each of the motions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Affirms Board Ruling in Carl Wilson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Department, New York, upheld the ruling of the Workers' Compensation Board, which ruled against Southern Tier Custom Fabricators, in an asbestos- related action filed by Carl Wilson. The case is styled In the Matter of the Claim of Carl Wilson, Respondent, v. Southern Tier Custom Fabricators et al., Appellants, and Cornell University, Respondent. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. Judges Cardona, Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kavanagh entered judgment of the case on May 15, 2008. This was an appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed May 12, 2006, which ruled that Mr. Wilson sustained a work-related occupational disease and awarded workers' compensation benefits. Mr. Wilson was employed as a sheet metal worker for nearly 40 years. In May 2002, he was diagnosed as suffering from asbestosis. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in April 2003, and the matter proceeded to a hearing. Ultimately, the issue distilled to identifying the employer in whose employment Mr. Wilson suffered his last injurious exposure to asbestos. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found that the last exposure occurred while Mr. Wilson was in the employ of Southern Tier. Upon review, a panel of the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, prompting this appeal by Southern Tier and its carrier. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board ruling. Coughlin & Gerhart, L.L.P., Binghamton (Scott G. Miller of counsel), represented Southern Tier Custom Fabricators et al. Levene, Gouldin & Thompson, L.L.P., Binghamton (Cynthia Ann Manchester of counsel), represented Cornell University. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CEAC Still to Pay $300T for French Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Exide Technologies' principal French subsidiary, Compagnie Europenne D Accumulateurs (d/b/a CEAC), in 2007, has been adjudged to indemnify a French governmental agency for about US$300,000 for asbestos claims. No payment has yet been made to the agency, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2008. From 1957 to 1982, CEAC operated a plant using crocidolite asbestos fibers in the formation of battery cases, which, once formed, encapsulated the fibers. About 1,500 employees worked in the plant over the period. Since 1982, the agency, which is responsible for worker illness claims, received 64 employee claims alleging asbestos-related illnesses. For some of those claims, CEAC is obligated to and has indemnified the agency in accordance with French law for about US$400,000 in calendar 2004. In addition, CEAC has been adjudged liable to indemnify the agency for about US$100,000 during the same period for the dependents of four of those claimants. The Company has not been required to indemnify or make any payments subsequent to calendar year 2004. Alpharetta, Ga.-based Exide Technologies is a manufacturer of lead acid batteries, with fiscal 2008 net sales of about US$3.7 billion. The Company manufactures and supplies lead acid batteries for transportation and industrial applications worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Check Air After Parkersburg Tornado --------------------------------------------------------------- Personnel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 will monitor air samples for asbestos and particulate matter in the continuing cleanup from a massive EF-5 tornado that killed seven people and injured at least 67 others in Parkersburg, Iowa, on May 25, 2008, according to an EPA press release dated June 9, 2008. EPA on-scene coordinators will oversee the air monitoring, which will be conducted using fixed monitoring equipment situated at key points in the city of Parkersburg. The monitoring has been scheduled for June 10, 2008, and will continue for as long as necessary. On June 11, 2008, EPA Region 7 is scheduled to deploy its Mobile Command Post to Parkersburg. The vehicle is outfitted with equipment necessary to receive and transmit data obtained during the sampling. Air monitoring during the cleanup will be conducted to assess air quality in order to protect the health of Parkersburg residents and any non-residents who may be assisting with the demolition and rebuilding efforts. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't Expands Relief Law for Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Japan's bicameral legislature, the National Diet of Japan, on June 11, 2008, enacted a bill to enable the provision of benefits to the surviving families after the deaths of people with asbestos-linked illnesses, Kyodo News reports. The bill to revise the current relief law for asbestos victims became law with its passage through a House of Councillors plenary session. The law is to be enforced by the end of 2008. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Ongoing at Kennedy Space Center ------------------------------------------------------------ The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's probe into the space shuttle's damaged launch pad at Kennedy Space Center, near Cape Canaveral, Fla., discovered asbestos amid the debris and damaged walls, Orlando Sentinel reports. According to people close to the investigation, hazmat teams were still cleaning up the site on June 4, 2008 and June 5, 2008 to allow a detailed inspection of pad 39-A at Kennedy Space Center to figure out why bricks and blocks from the flame trench were blasted away during shuttle Discovery's liftoff on May 31, 2008. In the case of the launch pad's flame trench, asbestos was used in rope and chord layered underneath the bricks. The trench is supposed to channel rocket flames away from the rocket. However, the exhaust from Discovery's engines blasted a 100 foot long section of bricks off the trench wall, sending them flying like missiles up to 2000 feet away. Some asbestos chord was lown out with the masonry and left exposed on the damaged trench wall. The launch pad was built at the time of the Apollo program and updated for the shuttle program in the 1980s. The shuttle sits on a mobile launch platform above the trench. While the cleanup crews worked to secure the flame trench and area around the pad, teams of engineers were using ground- penetrating radar, x-rays and thermal imaging scans to see if the launch pad itself was suffering from fatigue, corrosion or some significant structural defect, said Allard Beutel, NASA's KSC spokesman. NASA remains confident it will have the pad repaired in time for the next shuttle launch in October 2008 on a mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oak St Beach Visitors Urged to Have Checkup ---------------------------------------------------------------- LegalView.com reports that the Oak Street Beach, one of 33 beaches in the Chicago Park District frequented by visitors during the summer season, was the recent site of amphibole asbestos contamination. Individuals who may have been exposed to the asbestos fibers should seek medical attention immediately and, additionally, contact an experienced asbestos and mesothelioma law firm. According to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), amphibole asbestos is considered the most harmful concentration of asbestos to humans because of the high levels of iron and its high resistance to heat and acids. Because of these qualities of resistance, amphibole asbestos was widely popular in industrial furnaces and heating system production. LegalView.com is a public service brought by Legal WebTV Network, LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation created by a group of law firms: Anapol Schwartz; Brent Coon and Associates; Burg Simpson; Cohen, Placitella and Roth; James F. Humphreys and Associates; Lopez McHugh; and Thornton and Naumes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Potential Owners Asked to Inspect Homes ------------------------------------------------------------ The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center urges all home inspectors to properly examine all residences for asbestos- containing materials and subsequently inform potential homeowners, TransWorldNews reports. There are things to consider when purchasing a new home, including the hiring of a certified home inspector to survey the structure prior to finalizing a purchase. Potential home buyers rely on their home inspector to inform them of any structural issues or damage that may need to be repaired. However, what most home inspectors are failing to mention is that there may be asbestos-containing materials within a residence. In the United States, about 35 million residences contain structural materials that are laden with dormant asbestos. For many home inspectors, a thorough search for asbestos within a residence is not considered to be a priority, and is not necessarily part of their inspection. This presents a serious concern for potential homebuyers, as they may not know that the residence which they just purchased contains potentially harmful asbestos. This would be of even greater concern if the new homeowners moved in and attempted a variety of home renovations, including the installation of insulation or removal of asbestos floor tiles, which may put the homeowner at risk of asbestos inhalation. Before 1980, most homes were built using asbestos-containing materials, including insulation, drywall compound, floor and ceiling tiles, roofing materials, stucco, and certain adhesives. There has been a longstanding debate regarding the positive and negative implications of asbestos disclosure by home inspectors. There do exist issues of liability if a home inspector were to inspect a residence and not search for asbestos. This is particularly true if a homeowner were to become exposed to asbestos within their residence and were to eventually develop mesothelioma or other asbestos-related health complications. The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center is one of the web's informational resource for information on mesothelioma, related mesothelioma treatment options, and other important related information. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crews Exposed at Demolition Site in Colo. -------------------------------------------------------------- Law enforcement, fire and ambulance crews, who responded to the call of injured worker at a demolition at the Aspen Middle School in Aspen, Colo., were exposed to asbestos, The Aspen Times reports. Twenty-nine-year-old Juan Ruiz, of Denver, Colo., was killed when a free-standing cinder-block wall fell on him. He was part of a Denver crew doing demolition and removing vermiculite, according to school officials. When the call went out at 9:20 a.m. on April 30, 2008, three Pitkin County sheriff's deputies, two Aspen Police officers, three Aspen Ambulance crew members and two firefighters responded. Rescuers trying to reach Mr. Ruiz rushed into a plastic-draped construction zone where crews from ESA of Denver were removing the material. Pitkin County Sheriff's Investigator Ron Ryan said rescuers were first concerned that another wall might fall at the demolition site, then responders noticed that construction workers wore disposable protective suits and breathing masks. However, Mr. Ryan said rescuers knew the site posed little risk of serious asbestos exposure in the short term, and rescuers went to work trying to help the injured man. Deputy Adam Crider, who ran in and out of the contaminated site to retrieve supplies, said he was coughing after the incident, but believed it was the effect of concrete dust in the air. Aspen officer Joe Holman said, "The guys in paper suits and aspirators surprised us. But once you're in it, you're in it." He saw a doctor the day after the exposure and filled out a workman's comp form, as did other responders, but Mr. Holman said he was not worried. Lee Cassin, the city's environmental health director, said that the vermiculite at the school site probably was less harmful than straight asbestos, like the kind of material commonly wrapped around water pipes in older buildings. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bernie Banton's Widow Starts Research Group ---------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Banton, the widow of asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton, on June 11, 2008, launched the Asbestos Research Group in Brisbane, Australia, Sunshine Coast Daily reports. Mrs. Banton launched the group at The Wesley Research Institute in Auchenflower, Brisbane, Queensland, in memory of her late husband. Mr. Banton was a high profile campaigner for sufferers of asbestos-related illnesses contracted after working for building materials company James Hardie Industries N.V. He was involved with the production of various asbestos products and died on Nov. 27, 2007 from mesothelioma. The Asbestos Research Group will facilitate research and raise awareness of asbestosis and asbestos-related diseases. It also aims at improving treatment and enhancing the quality of life of those affected. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Claimants Await Trust Payout --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Jimmy Rodgers, on behalf of his clients with asbestos- related diseases, is still waiting to collect from the Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, 12 months after submitting claims, The Blade reports. Mr. Rodgers, of Chattanooga, Tenn., said, "You can't place blame on the trust, because they have had to contend with so many claims." Since starting in October 2006, the trust has paid US$390 million on 70,000 claims submitted by people - primarily construction workers, ship-builders, and others - who developed lung diseases from working around asbestos-containing insulation and other products once made by Owens Corning and its Fibreboard subsidiary. As part of the Company's six-year bankruptcy case, the trust assumed responsibility for compensating victims. OC kicked in a multi billion-dollar pot of cash and stock to shed the liability. The trust has received an additional 256,000 claims and faces new demands for compensation daily. The statistics are found in the trust's first detailed financial report, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del. Trustees wrote, "The ultimate number of asbestos . . . claims to be filed and the liability for all such claims are not determinable at this time. The net assets available for the payment of claims at Dec. 31, 2007, may or may not be sufficient to meet all future obligations of the trust." The trust contains US$4.5 billion, about a third of which is Owens Corning stock. It is the Company's largest shareholder, with 28.2 million shares or nearly a fourth of all Company stock. The trust collected US$43 million from settlements with Owens Corning's insurance firms. Asbestos claimants and their lawyers are interested in how the trust's assets are performing because of major problems with a similar trust at Johns-Manville Corp. that forced trustees there to vastly trim payouts. Most payments have gone to people who settled with the Company years ago but whose settlements were tied up by the firm's bankruptcy filing in October 2000. Just US$16 million has gone toward 2,500 newer claims, about nine percent of which involved people with cancer. Toledo, Ohio-based Owens Corning is a producer of glass fiber reinforcements and other materials for composites systems and residential and commercial building materials. The Company operates within two general product categories: composites systems, which includes its Composite Solutions reportable segment and building materials, which includes its Insulating Systems, Roofing and Asphalt and Other Building Materials and Services reportable segments. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Parliament Criticizes Insurance Industry ---------------------------------------------------------------- British Members of Parliament criticized the insurance industry's treatment of asbestos victims, Legal & Medical reports. MP Michael Clapham described the insurance industry as acting like "jackals" in their concentrated attack on paying compensation to victims of industrial illnesses. Mr. Clapham accused the insurance industry of gross "hypocrisy" saying that on the one hand their representatives make statements that they want to ensure that payments to mesothelioma victims easy and straightforward, then in the next breath they launch expensive legal cases to deny victims compensation. MP Jim Sherdan described asbestos victims as "being treated worse than cattle." The MPs were speaking in a Westminster Hall debate about the fight to restore compensation to victims of pleural plaques. Robin Rudd, a medical expert on pleural plaques, and Consultant Physician, has stated that pleural plaques are a pathological change in the membrane which surrounds the lung, victims of pleural plaques are liable to pleural thickening causing breathlessness, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Dr. Rudd also found that pleural plaque sufferers suffer severe mental anxiety following diagnosis, as they fear that they will die from mesothelioma, which is incurable. During the debate it also emerged that an accountancy firm has estimated that the Law Lords decision on pleural plaques will save the insurance industry GBP1.4 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J.C. Penney Expects Cleanup to Cost $45MM -------------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc., as of May 3, 2008, estimated to incur US$45 million for environmental liabilities, which was recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2008. As of May 3, 2008, the Company estimated its total potential environmental liabilities to range from US$40 million to US$51 million. This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental conditions involving the Company's former Eckerd drugstore locations and asbestos removal in connection with approved plans to renovate or dispose of Company facilities. The Company estimated to incur US$43 million, as of Feb. 2, 2008, for potential environmental liabilities. As of Feb. 2, 2008, the Company estimated its total potential environmental liabilities to range from US$38 million to US$49 million. (Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2008) Plano, Tex.-based J. C. Penney Company, Inc. was created in 2002 as a holding company for department store operator J. C. Penney Corporation, its wholly owned subsidiary. J. C. Penney Corporation is one of the largest department store, catalog, and e-commerce retailers in the U.S. The retailer runs more than 1,000 JCPenney department stores throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HHS & EPA to Launch $8M Libby Health Study --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on June 11, 2008, announced the Libby Amphibole Health Risk Initiative, a series of projects totaling US$8 million designed to understand the health effects of exposure to lower levels of Libby, Mont., asbestos (i.e., Libby amphibole), according to an HHS press release dated June 11, 2008. HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said, "My interest in Libby dates to the first of my visits with the people of that community with Senator Max Baucus, who deserves credit for his tireless and passionate work on behalf of that community. Too little is currently known about exposure to lower levels of Libby asbestos. We hope this effort will expand our knowledge of potential and real health issues that could be facing this group of individuals." The five-year initiative, to be funded by HHS Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the EPA, will focus on determining whether exposure to lower levels of Libby asbestos is associated with increased risk of lung disease, cancer, chronic illnesses, auto-immune diseases or other adverse health outcomes. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said, "Since 1999, EPA has been working closely with the community of Libby to clean up contamination and reduce risks to human health. In collaboration with HHS, EPA will continue to help protect the health and well- being of the Libby residents." The initiative will seek input and advice from Libby residents and organizations and is expected to include: -- Studies that compare the health status and conditions of people who were exposed to Libby asbestos in childhood to the health status and conditions of people who did not have such exposure. -- Expanded evaluation of Libby residents who were exposed to the asbestos, including those who had lower levels of environmental exposure to the Libby asbestos. -- An assessment of whether the adverse health effects of exposure to Libby asbestos extend beyond lung disease. -- Strengthening existing public health tracking systems (e.g., the State Cancer Registry) and patient health record databases in order to better link exposure information to health conditions and outcomes. -- Continuation of a study by ATSDR and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that compares film and digital chest x-rays in an effort to determine which is best for assessing the status or conditions of lungs. More information on the Libby Amphibole Health Risk Initiative can be found at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/and http://www.epa.gov/ ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deem Sues A.W. Chesterton, et al. in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Shirley Deem, on behalf of the late Ronald Duane Deem, on May 23, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against A.W. Chesterton Company and 38 other companies with the Orange County District Court, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Mrs. Deem blames the companies for conspiring to conceal the hazards of asbestos to human health and purposely inflicting Mr. Deem with an asbestos-related disease. Mrs. Deem seeks compensation for Mr. Deem's alleged exposure to asbestos. According to the plaintiffs' original petition, companies like Viacom Inc., General Electric Company, and Zurn Industries knew that the asbestos products they manufactured would hit the market without inspection for defects. The suit says the defendants have been in possession of medical and scientific data exposing the health risks of asbestos for decades, but conspired among themselves to suppress the information. The suit indicates Mr. Deem was most likely exposed to asbestos while working at shipyards, steel mills, refineries, paper mills, chemical plants, the military and other facilities in the U.S. However, the suit does not give specifics on the location or time of his employment. Mrs. Deem sues for physical pain and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future medical expenses, including home care costs. Mrs. Deem also seeks punitive and exemplary damages. Brent Coon & Associates attorney Lou Thompson Black represents the plaintiff. Case No. A-080205-c has been assigned to Judge Patrick Clark, 128th Judicial District. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Local Sues 12 Companies in Ill. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of Michael Gonzales, a resident of Florida who died from mesothelioma, on May 30, 2008, sued 12 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., claiming his disease was wrongfully caused, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. The complaint names Atlas Asbestos Company, Bell Asbestos Mines, Bondex International, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Trust, as successor to Felt Products Manufacturing, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Trust, as successor to the former Vellumoid Division of Federal-Mogul, Foseco plc, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, John Crane Inc., Pneumo Abex, RPM International Inc., RPM Inc. and T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition. According to the complaint, Mr. Gonzales was employed from 1951 to 1987 as a chipper, grinder and welder at various locations. Mr. Gonzales' estate claims that during the course of his employment and during home and automotive repairs, he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with and around. Mr. Gonzales' estate claims that defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people. According to Mr. Gonzales' estate, he first became aware that he suffered from mesothelioma on Oct. 3, 2007, and subsequently died on Nov. 24, 2007. Mr. Gonzales' estate alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos. The estate also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. As a result of the alleged negligence, the estate claims Mr. Gonzales was exposed to fibers containing asbestos and developed a disease caused only by asbestos which disabled and disfigured him. The estate claims that prior to his death, Mr. Gonzales suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, and also was hindered and prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money. The estate seeks at least US$200,000 in damages for negligence and willful and wanton conduct. Gonzales' estate is represented by John Barnerd, Robert Phillips, Nicholas Angelides and Perry Browder of SimmonsCooper in East Alton. Case No. 08 L 471 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Men Charged for Disposal Breaches in U.K. ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Kelleher and Patrick Anderson, two men who made GBP1.2 million for dumping more than 14,000 tons of waste, including asbestos, across London and Essex have been jailed, BBC News reports. The 39-year-old Mr. Kelleher, of Dagenham, East London, was sentenced to 14 months. The 51-year-old Mr. Anderson, of Ireland, was sentenced to 22 months. Both men were charged for conspiracy to unlawfully deposit controlled waste. The Inner London Crown Court heard that both men carried out their illegal operations using false names. Both pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge. The pair dumped 750 lorry loads of waste from January 2003 to June 2004 at 15 sites on both public and privately-owned lands. Much of the GBP340,000 clean-up costs were picked up by the taxpayer. It was the first time that the Environment Agency, which led the investigation, had used a European Arrest Warrant to bring back a defendant from abroad to face charges. It was used to bring Mr. Anderson back to face justice in the United Kingdom after he left for Ireland. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement Done at Clay County, Fla. School --------------------------------------------------------------- Clay County, Fla., school officials took steps to remove asbestos and other hazards from the Keystone Elementary School, News4Jax.com reports. On June 10, 2008, workers wearing environmental protective suits and ventilators were removing potentially hazardous walls from Keystone Elementary School. The school said the walls contain non-friable asbestos. Ross Tholand of Clay County Schools said, "We're removing some transite-paneled walls and replacing those with concrete-block walls and new doors." Transite is an asbestos material. Mr. Tholand said years ago, all friable, or harmful asbestos material, was removed from schools and structures around Clay County. He also said there were annual inspections of the non- friable materials that remained in place. Mr. Tholand said there were no such issues with the asbestos being removed, telling Channel 4 that the school had a plan in place to remove the walls years ago and finally got the necessary funding. When asked why new schools, like Oak Leaf and Fleming Island, were built before a potentially harmful situation at an existing school was taken care of, Mr. Tholand said the new-construction funds are separate from maintenance funds. Parents with students at Keystone Elementary School said they are happy to know there would be no health concerns in the fall. All of the potentially harmful materials are expected to be off the campus by June 11, 2008. The entire project is expected to be complete within 30 days. ********* 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 * * *