text:
Friday, October 12, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 202
3COM CORP: Shareholders Sue Aiming to Block Bain's $2.2B Buyout
ACI WORLDWIDE: $24.5M Neb. Securities Suit Settlement Appealed
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Fla. Court Considers Certification in "Garcia"
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Suit Over Service Mark ups
AMCOR LTD: Visy Admission to Boost Antitrust Claims, Lawyer Says
APPLE INC: Faces Multi-Million Dollar Suit Over iPhone Locking
BANK ONE: Settles Ill. Securities Suit Over 1998 Merger for $28M
BLACK & DECKER: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Employment Discrimination
CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls Glitter Candles Due to Fire Hazard
FARM CONTRACTORS: Undocumented Farm Workers File Suit in Calif.
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuits Over FEMA Trailers, Homes
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Avon Pension Fund to Lead Avandia Litigation
H&R BLOCK: Faces Lawsuit Over RSM's Business Valuation Services
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: N.J. Labor-Related Litigations Still Stayed
MICHAELS STORES: Amended Complaint Filed in Tex. Securities Suit
ORACLE CORP: Nov. 26 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces "Marshall" Hotel Tax Suit in Del.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Cal. "Bush" Hotel Tax Lawsuit
SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex.
SERVICE CORP: SCI Funeral Still Faces "Valls" Litigation in Fla.
SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Baudino" Litigation
SERVICE CORP: "Hijar" Plaintiffs Seek Review of Decertification
SSA GLOBAL: Dec. 10 Hearing Set for $5M Investor Suit Settlement
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Nixing of SCI Affiliate from Case Appealed
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Faces Up to $1.5B Funeral Consumer Claims
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Recalls DVD Players AC Adapters for Burn Hazard
WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Appeal 172M Award in "Savaglio"
WAL-MART STORES: Certification Motion Filed in Cal. "Bonus" Suit
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling on Terrance Suit v. Exxon Upheld
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Co. Settles Six Cases for $405T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Levine Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action v. Georgia-Pacific Settled on Oct. 2
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Town Council in Talks Over Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Boston Steam Pipe Release
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Minister Orders Building Reassessment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Govt. Worker Seeks GBP200T in Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illnesses Afflict South Africa Mining Towns
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Counters Appeal Court Ruling in Mont.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Appeal Filed by Thorpe Insulation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mich. Worker Sues 51 Companies in Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Demolished Texas Apartment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Urge Canada to Ban Mining, Export
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DOJ Seeks Probe on Firm's Billing Practices
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Classrooms of U.K. School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Delays Reopening of U.K. Park Farm
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foreign Ship Owners Agree to Asbestos Audit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered at U.K. Sheltered Homes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO Praises Passing of Act to Ban Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Gov't. Petition in Trinity Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Records 10,957 Cases at Aug. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Expect Ruling on Coverage in 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AWI Gets "Majority" of $180M Tax Refunds
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Navy Veteran's Kin Sues 53 Firms in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Senate Approves Total Ban on Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seaman Gets GBP62T Payout from British Rail
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Group Demands Better Treatment for Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Agrees to Federal-Mogul Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Pensioner Seeks GBP200T Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Discovered in Grounds of U.K. School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Junks Appeals in Cole Action
BIGBAND NETWORKS: Wolf Popper Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
LDK SOLAR: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Bernard M. Gross Files First Securities Suit
3Com Corp. is facing a class action aiming to prevent a $2.2 billion buyout of
the company by private equity firm Bain Capital Partners and China's Huawei
Technologies, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Oct. 9.
On Sept. 28, Bain Capital and Huawei, a privately held company, agreed to
purchase 3Com for $2.2 billion in cash. Shareholders would receive $5.30 in
cash for each share of 3Com stock.
Several purported class actions have been filed since September 28, 2007 by
3Com shareholders against the Company, its current directors, a former
director, Bain Capital Partners, and in some cases, Huawei Technologies.
The plaintiffs seek class certification and injunctions against the proposed
sale of the Company, contending that the sale price agreed to by the directors
is insufficient, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, and that
Bain Capital Partners, and in some cases, Huawei Technologies, aided and
abetted the alleged breaches.
The defendants intend to vigorously defend these suits.
The shareholders also argue in their lawsuits that Bain Capital, where
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was once a partner, and in some
cases Huawei Technologies, may have "aided and abetted the alleged breaches,"
according to the filing.
Based in Marlborough, Mass., 3Com Corp. provides secure, converged networking
solutions on a global scale to businesses of all sizes. Its products and
solutions enable customers to manage business-critical voice and data in a
secure and efficient network environment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal
against a $24.5 million settlement of a securities fraud class action against
ACI Worldwide, Inc. f/k/a Transaction Systems Architects, Inc.
In November 2002, two class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska against the company and certain individuals alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Pursuant to a Court order, the two complaints were consolidated as "Desert
Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects, Inc., et al.," with Genesee
County Employees' Retirement System designated as lead plaintiff.
Second Complaint
The Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint previously alleged that
during the purported class period, the company and the named defendants
misrepresented the company's historical financial condition, results of
operations and our future prospects, and failed to disclose facts that could
have indicated an impending decline in the company's revenues.
That Complaint also alleged that, prior to August 2002, the purported truth
regarding the company's financial condition had not been disclosed to the market.
The company and the individual defendants initially filed a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit. In response, on Dec. 15, 2003, the Court dismissed, without
prejudice, Gregory Derkacht, the company's former president and chief
executive officer, as a defendant, but denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to the remaining defendants, including the company.
On July 1, 2004, lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
wherein, for the first time, lead plaintiff sought to add an additional class
representative, Roger M. Wally.
On Aug. 20, 2004, defendants filed their opposition to the motion. On March
22, 2005, the Court issued an order certifying the class of persons that
purchased the company's common stock from Jan. 21, 1999 through Nov. 18, 2002.
On Jan. 27, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, seeking a dismissal of the lead plaintiff and
certain other class members, as well as a limitation on damages based upon
plaintiffs' inability to establish loss causation with respect to a large
portion of their claims.
On Feb. 6, 2006, additional class representative Roger M. Wally filed a motion
to withdraw as a class representative and class member.
On April 21, 2006, and based upon the pending motion for judgment, a motion to
intervene as a class representative was filed by the Louisiana District
Attorneys Retirement System (LDARS). LDARS previously attempted to be named
as lead plaintiff in the case.
On July 5, 2006, the Magistrate denied LDARS' motion to intervene, which LDARS
appealed to the District Judge. That appeal has not yet been decided.
On May 17, 2006, the Court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings as
being moot based upon the Court's granting lead plaintiff leave to file a
Third Amended Complaint, which it did on May 31, 2006.
Third Complaint
The Third Complaint alleges the same misrepresentations as described above,
while simultaneously alleging that the purported truth about our financial
condition was being disclosed throughout that time, commencing in April 1999.
It seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.
On June 14, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Complaint pursuant to Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Lead Plaintiff opposed the motion.
Prior to any ruling on the motion to dismiss, on Nov. 7, 2006, the parties
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement for purposes of settling all of the
claims in the Class Action Litigation, with no admissions of wrongdoing by the
company or any individual defendant.
The settlement provides for an aggregate cash payment of $24.5 million of
which, net of insurance, the company contributed approximately $8.5 million.
The Court approved the settlement on March 2, 2007 and it ordered the case
dismissed with prejudice against the company and the individual defendants.
Settlement Objection
On March 27, 2007, James J. Hayes, a class member, filed a notice of appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit appealing the Court's
order. The company responded to this appeal in accordance with the Court of
Appeals' orders and procedures.
The appeal has not yet been decided, according to the company's Sept. 24, 2007
Form 10-Q Filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.
The suit is "Desert Orchid Partners, LLC, et al. v. Transaction Systems
Architects, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-CV-0553," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska under Judge Joseph F. Bataillon.
Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC
11001 Executive Center Drive, Suite 200
E-mail: info@cauleybowman.com
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
E-mail: info@glrslaw.com
Kinsey, Ridenour, Becker & Kistler
P.O. Box 85778, 601 Lincoln Square, 121 S. 13th St.
E-mail: krbk@krbklaw.com
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
E-mail: info@labaton.com
The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida has
yet to certify a class in the case against Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was
acquired by Service Corp. International on Nov. 28, 2006.
The suit (Case No.: 04-25646 CA 32) was filed by Reyvis Garcia and Alicia
Garcia against:
-- Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
-- Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation,
* d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South,
* f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc.
Plaintiffs in the case, which was filed in December 2004, are the son and
sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial
Park South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial
Gardens, Inc.
Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of the plaintiffs
relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia, who essentially claimed that due to
poor record keeping, spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family
could not afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of
the decedent could not be located.
In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class
of all persons buried at the cemetery whose burial sites cannot be located,
claiming that this is due to poor record keeping, maps and surveys at the
cemetery. They are also seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief.
No class has been certified in this matter.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.
Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/ -- is a provider of
deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries.
Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp. International on
Nov. 28, 2006, continues to face a purported class action over its alleged
non-disclosure of markups on funeral service contracts. The suit is pending
in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los
Angeles, Central District.
The suit, "Richard Sanchez et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al., Case No.
BC328962," was filed in February 2005. It seeks to certify a nationwide class
on behalf of all consumers who purchased funeral goods and services from the
Plaintiffs allege in essence that the Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Rule
requires the company to disclose its markups on all items obtained from third
parties in connection with funeral service contracts. They further allege
that the company has failed to make such disclosures.
The suit is seeking to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
attorney's fees, costs and unspecified injunctive and declaratory relief.
The law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman is confident that an admission of an
antitrust collusion by Visy Industries will boost its case against, Amcor
Ltd., reports say.
In April 2006, Maurice Blackburn filed a suit in Federal Court of Australia on
behalf of the now defunct Jarra Creek Central Packaging Shed Pty Ltd.,
alleging cartel behavior and seeking declarations, injunctions and unspecified
damages against:
-- Amcor Ltd.,
-- Amcor Packaging (Australia) Ltd., and
-- Fibre Containers (Queensland) Pty Ltd.
The suit claimed the plaintiff has been damaged by price fixing and market
sharing in the cardboard box industry between 2000 and 2005. Amcor escaped
prosecution after being granted immunity by the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission (ACCC) commission in return for information about the
practice.
But now, after Visy owner Richard Pratt admitted to the conspiracy, lawyer Ben
Slade of Maurice Blackburn said, "I would have thought that if Amcor has
fessed up and said well we want immunity and the immunity has been given by
the ACCC from prosecution but not from damages claims and now Visy is saying
we done it, then it seems like a pretty difficult one for us to lose,"
according to ABC Online.
The class action alleges customers of Amcor and Visy were overcharged between
8 per cent and 15 per cent for their cardboard packaging for a span of more
than five years after the companies allegedly entered into a deal to
artificially inflate prices.
The class action was expected to focus on how much liability Amcor and Visy
should bear for the costs passed on to other businesses, said Rebecca
Gilsenan, who is representing the claimants.
Visy is facing a class action from companies that claim they were forced to
pay an extra $700 million in packaging costs because of the illicit deal. It
is joined to the class action against Amcor in April and stands to face
greater cost because of its higher market share. Visy has about 55 per cent
of the market compared with Amcor's 36 per cent in 2004-05, according to
Sydney Morning Herald.
Visy and Amcor are also facing a $120 million claim lodged by Cadbury
Schweppes, claiming that the anti-competitive conduct extended beyond the
cardboard market into PET containers and aluminium cans for drinks.
Mr. Pratt's admissions are understood to be part of a settlement reached in
the case, with an agreed statement of claim to Justice Peter Heerey in the
Federal Court, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
Maurice Blackburn: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/.
Apple Inc. and AT&T Mobility, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed
Oct. 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
accusing the companies of conspiring to restrain commerce and injure
consumers, the CourtHouse News Service reports.
This action arises out of defendants' alleged unlawful acts which were
designed for the express purpose, and had the effect of, improperly
interfering with the rights of consumers to freely and lawfully use the
product they purchased and paid for.
Named plaintiffs Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello claim both companies conspired
to restrain commerce and injure consumers by making it impossible to run
programs on iPhones unless users buy them directly from Apple, and of forcing
customers to use AT&T cell phone and mobile data services.
The iPhone has "security measures" that illegally restrain trade, the
complaint states. Apple has illegally threatened to void the warranties of
customers who figure out how to install third-party programs, it states.
Apple and AT&T are accused of "taking affirmative steps to break the iPhones
of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card or who installed Third
Party Apps." And it accuses AT&T of modifying its iPhone software after the
phones went on sale to ensure that it could break customers' phones at will.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all individuals or entities who at
any time from June 29, 2007 to the date of judgment in this action, bought and
implemented the iPhone and sustained damages as a result.
They want the court to rule on:
(a) whether, in marketing and selling the iPhone,
defendants entered into agreements in restraint of
trade;
(b) whether defendants' conduct has any technological or
competitive justification;
(c) whether defendants' conduct constituted unlawful,
unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices within
the meaning of California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200;
(d) whether defendants' conduct constituted unlawful
business acts or practices within the meaning of
California Business and Professions Code Section 16720
et seq.;
(e) whether defendants' conduct constituted unlawful
business acts or practices in violation of Section 1 of
The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1;
(f) whether defendants' conduct constituted unlawful
(g) whether Apple's software release 1.1.1 was designed to
or did disable Third Party Apps and SIM card unlocks
without any need or technological justification for
doing so other than to advance product tie-in goals
which are unlawful under California and federal law;
(h) whether terms of defendants' contracts with plaintiffs
and the class are void and unenforceable terms of any
enforceable contracts between defendants and plaintiffs
and the class; and
(j) the appropriate measure of damages and other relief.
Plaintiffs and the class pray for an award and judgment against defendants
jointly and severally;
-- on plaintiffs' first claim for relief, for restitution
of all amounts lost as a result of defendants' violation
of Business and Professions Code Section 174200 et seq;
-- on plaintiffs' second, third and fourth claims for
relief, for an amount to be proven at trial for all
direct and consequential damages incurred by plaintiffs
and the class, but no less than $200 million, trebled to
$600 million;
-- on plaintiffs' fifth claim for relief, for an amount to
be proven at trial for all direct and consequential
damages incurred by the plaintiffs and the class as a
result of defendants' wrongful conduct, but no less than
-- on plaintiffs' sixth claim for relief, for punitive
damages in an amount of no less than $600 million;
-- on plaintiffs' first through fifth claims for relief,
for an injunction prohibiting in the future the unlawful
conduct alleged;
-- on plaintiffs' first through fourth claims for relief,
for an order declaring all unlawful terms of the
agreements between Apple and AT&T and either of the
plaintiffs or any member of the class void and
unenforceable;
-- for all costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, and interest; and
-- for such other and further relief as the court deems
just.
The suit is "Paul Holman et al. v. Apple, Inc. et al., Case No. C07 05152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Max Folkenflik, Esq.
Margaret McGErity, Esq.
Folkenflik & McGerity
1500 Broadway, 21st Floor
New York,NY 10036
H. Tim Hoffman
Arthur W. Lazear
Morgan M. Mack
Hoffman & Lazear
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550
Oakland, California 94612
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP announced that the Class and
defendant Bank One in "In re Old Banc One Shareholders Litigation, No. 00 C
2100" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
have entered into a $28,000,000 Stipulation of Settlement dated September 11,
2007 to settle the claims of the Class in this Litigation.
The class includes all persons or entities who purchased shares of Banc One
Corporation (Old Banc One) common stock during the period of August 6, 1998
through October 1, 1998, both dates inclusive, and received Bank One
Corporation (Bank One) common stock through the conversion of Old Banc One
common stock to Bank One common stock issued in connection with the merger
between Old Banc One and First Chicago NBD Corporation effective October 2, 1998.
Excluded from the Class are:
(a) all Bank One common stock of former Old Banc One
shareholders which were sold prior to August 30, 1999;
(b) the Individual Defendants, officers and directors of
Bank One, members of the Individual Defendants'
immediate families, any entity in which any defendant
has a controlling interest, and the legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any
such excluded person.
The litigation is a consolidated class action under the federal securities
laws concerning the Merger of First Chicago and Bank One in October of 1998.
Plaintiffs allege that Bank One and the other defendants made material
misstatements and omissions in connection with that transaction. Defendants
deny all allegations of wrongdoing, deny any violations of the securities
laws, maintain that they acted properly in all respects and make no admission
of fault, liability or damages in connection with the proposed Settlement or
otherwise (Class Action Reporter, April 5, 2005).
According to the law firm, the Old Banc One Shareholders' claims arise under
Section 12(a)(2) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (Section 12(a)(2)) on
behalf of all shareholders of Old Banc One securities whose shares were
converted to Bank One securities pursuant to the merger.
Plaintiffs allege that the Proxy/Prospectus related to the merger between Old
Banc One and First Chicago NBD (which was consummated on Oct. 2, 1998) was
materially false and misleading because the financial statements contained
therein misrepresented the growth of Old Banc One's subsidiary credit card
division, First USA.
The reality was that First USA was in violation of The Truth in Lending Act
(TILA) and Regulation Z prior to the merger, and therefore, the reported
income and revenue contained in the Proxy/Prospectus were inflated. Bank One
issued public announcements in the summer and fall of 1999 revising its
financial outlook due, in part, to First USA's discontinuance of its improper
conduct in booking late fees and interest charges to which it was not entitled.
Bank One has virtually conceded that for approximately 20 months -- from
January 1, 1998 though Aug. 31, 1999 -- there had been improper charges to its
credit card customers of late fees, interest and other penalties.
The Court will hold a hearing on November 30, 2007, at 8:45 a.m., before the
Honorable Wayne R. Andersen, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois to determine:
(1) whether the settlement of the Class's claims against
Bank One for $28,000,000 should be approved as fair,
just, reasonable and adequate;
(2) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
filed with the Court;
(3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate;
(4) whether the application of Class Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and
(5) whether the Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative
should be granted an award for services on behalf of
the Class as requested by Class Counsel.
Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on November 15, 2007. Deadline
to file for claims is on January 15, 2008.
Representing the class are:
Robin F. Zwerling
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225
Representing Bank One Corporation is:
Robert Y. Sperling
35 West Wacker Drive
Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. d/b/a Porter Cable, is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee alleging it forces job applicants to take a "nerve conduction study"
and refuses to hire them if it believes the test shows they are susceptible to
carpal tunnel syndrome.
Named plaintiff Victor Breehne brings this action for discrimination in
employment by taking adverse employment action against individuals at its
Jackson, Tennessee plant based upon these individuals' nerve conductions
studies. These nerve conduction studies purport to indicate these individuals
had a propensity to develop cumulative trauma disorders, such as carpal tunnel
syndrome, and defendant thereby mistakenly perceived them to be undesirable
hires who were substantially limited in the major life activity of working.
He brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a),(b)(1),(b)(2)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all applicants
to defendant's facility in Jackson, Tennessee who have actual disabilities,
are perceived as being disabled, or have a history of being disabled, who have
been denied employment based upon nerve conduction studies purporting to
indicate they had a propensity to develop cumulative trauma disorders, such as
carpal tunnel syndrome, and therefore should not be hired for what amounts to
a "class or range of jobs."
Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether defendant's policies, procedures, acts and
omissions violated (and/or continue to violate) the
ADA; and
(b) whether plaintiff and the class have sustained injury
by reason of defendant's acts or omissions.
He prays for relief and judgment as follows:
-- determining that this is a proper class action to be
certified under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
-- grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its
directors, officers, employees, agents from engaging in,
ratifying, or refusing to correct the employment
practices which discriminate in violation of the ADA;
-- order defendant to make plaintiffs and the class whole
by providing appropriate back-pay with prejudgment
interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, instatement
or reinstatement to positions with defendant;
-- awarding extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive
relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal
statutory provisions sued hereunder pursuant to Rule 65
and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
-- awarding plaintiff and class members restitutionary
and/or remedial relief;
-- awarding plaintiff and class members pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs;
-- award such other legal and equitable relief as the court
deems appropriate and just.
The suit is "Victor Breehne et al. v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. d/b/a Prter
Cable," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Justin S. Gilbert
Michael L. Russell
Gilbert & Russell, PLC
2021 Greystone Park
Jackson, Tennessee 38308
Christmas Tree Shops Inc., of South Yarmouth, Massachusetts, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 9,600
sequin glitter candles.
The company said the candle's exterior glitter coating can ignite, posing a
fire hazard.
The firm has received four reports of flames or smoke coming from the candle
or the exterior coating. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves glitter candles in three styles.
UPC Size/Shape
0 00014 42442 7 3 inches across x 3 inches tall
0 00014 42444 1 inches tall, teardrop shape
The candles were available in gold, silver and red. The UPC label can be
located on the product's packaging.
These recalled glitter candles were manufactured in China and are being sold
at Christmas Tree Shop retail locations nationwide from November 2006 through
December 2006 for between $1.70 and $3.00.
Picture of recalled glitter candles:
Consumers should immediately stop using the candles and return them to the
place of purchase for a full refund. For a list of stores, visit the firm's
For additional information, call Christmas Tree Shops toll-free at (888)
287-3232 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.christmastreeshops.com
More than 100 immigrant workers filed a class action against three
Salinas-area farm labor contractors and growers in the Monterey County
Superior Court in California, on behalf of those who say they were taken
advantage of because of their undocumented status, Victor Calderon of The
Salinas Californian reports.
The complaint names the following as defendants:
-- Valley Pride Inc.,
-- Sea Breeze Harvesting of Castroville and
-- Premium Packing Inc.
Plaintiffs -- Pedro Diaz Bautista and Jose Zenon Tenorio Moreno -- contend
their employers failed to pay them earned overtime wages and did not allow
them to take meal and rest periods, among other charges.
Plaintiffs, who worked in celery harvesting operation crews for the companies,
are seeking compensation for their unpaid wages and court fees.
According to the report, the lawsuit will now be served to the employers, and
a judge will determine if the case has merit.
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. faces several complaints, some of which are
putative class actions, filed against manufacturers of travel trailers and
manufactured homes supplied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
to be used for emergency living accommodations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
The complaints generally allege injury due to the presence of formaldehyde in
the units.
Oldenburg Litigation
One of these class actions is "Oldenburg et al. v. United State of America et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02961-ILRL-DEK," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2007).
The federal government, along with several other parties, faces a purported
federal class action that accuses it of housing victims of Hurricane Katrina
in Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers contaminated by carcinogenic
formaldehyde.
Robin Oldenburg, Austin Sicard, and Cindy McDonald - all residents of the
Parish of St. Bernard -- filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on May 18, 2007.
In it, the trio also named as defendants
-- Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.;
-- Fleetwood Canada, Ltd.; and
-- Other as yet unnamed travel trailer vendors to FEMA.
The case was brought on behalf of those persons residing or living in
manufactured mobile homes, mobile homes or travel trailers (hereinafter called
"housing units") along the Gulf coast of the U.S.
The housing units were provided by FEMA after the landfalls of Hurricane
Katrina, and who are being subjected to harmful levels of formaldehyde while
residing in said housing units.
Formaldehyde (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html)is used in the manufacture
of certain construction materials as particleboard and plywood, particularly
in the manufactured home industry.
According to the National Cancer Institute, formaldehyde has been classified
as a human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency
for Research on Cancer and as a probably human carcinogen by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered damages in an amount in excess of
$75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, as to themselves and each proposed
class member. They are demanding a jury trial for their case.
Hillard Litigation
Another similar suit is "Hillard et al. v. United States of America et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02576-MVL-KWR," which was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2006).
The suit was initiated by attorney Sean Trundy over dangerous levels of
formaldehyde in Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers provided to
Hurricane Katrina victims, The South Bend Tribune reports.
The suit alleges that high concentrations of formaldehyde, emitted from
products in the Indiana-made trailers, caused "a clear and present danger to
the health and well-being" of the people who live in the trailers.
Mr. Trundy claimed the trailers caused his clients to experience allergy or
flu like symptoms including headaches and stuffed noses.
After Hurricane Katrina destroyed much of the Gulf Coast region, the federal
government bought thousands of trailers to house victims of the storm,
according to the report.
Named defendants in the suit are:
-- United States of America,
-- Federal Emergency Management Agency,
-- Gulf Stream Coach of Nappanee,
-- Pilgrim International Inc. of Middlebury,
-- KZRV LP of Shipshewana,
-- Starcraft RV of Topeka,
-- Monaco Coach of Oregon with plants in northern Indiana,
-- Fleetwood Enterprises of California with operations
south of Fort Wayne
The suit seeks a court order that will require the government to fix the
problem rather than offer a monetary award.
The suit stemmed from tests conducted by the Sierra Club on 31 FEMA trailers
and found out that 29 trailers were above the 1 part per million-formaldehyde
safety limit recommended by the federal government and the American Lung
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.fleetwood.com/-- is engaged in
producing both recreational vehicles and manufactured housing. The Company
also operates three supply companies that provide components for the
recreational vehicle and housing operations, while also generating outside sales.
The United States District Court in the Southern District of New York has
appointed Avon Pension Fund, a U.K. fund representing public sector workers,
lead plaintiff in a class action against GlaxoSmithKline, accusing the company
of allegedly misleading investors over the safety and efficacy of its diabetes
drug Avandia.
In June, Kaplan Fox filed the suit alleging defendants violated Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a
series of false and misleading statements regarding Avandia, GSK's popular
diabetes drug (Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2007).
In particular, the Complaint alleges that GSK failed to adequately disclose
the fact that it had performed a meta-analysis (a pooled analysis of several
clinical trials) related to Avandia which showed an increased risk of heart
Preliminary results of this analysis were presented to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration in September 2005 and updated results were disclosed to the FDA
in August 2006. However, the results of GSK's meta-analysis were never
adequately disclosed to the investing public.
As alleged in the Complaint, on May 21, 2007, before the close of trading, the
results of a meta-analysis on Avandia conducted by a doctor with the Cleveland
Clinic was reported and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Similar to GSK's meta-analysis conducted in 2005 and 2006, the results of the
meta-analysis published in the Journal revealed that Avandia increased the
risk of heart attacks and possibly heart-related deaths. As a result of the
reports regarding the meta-analysis, the price of GSK securities declined
$4.53 per share, or 7.8%, to close at $53.18 per share, on unusually heavy
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased GSK securities between October 27, 2005 and May 21, 2007, inclusive.
In a statement GSK said it believed the results did not confirm a difference
in the safety profile of Avandia.
On Oct. 5, the Court appointed Avon as lead plaintiff, ahead of a group of
competing German investors that had also sought to be appointed the lead
plaintiffs. Leading US securities law firm, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman
and Robbins LLP has been appointed lead counsel in the case.
This is the first time that a UK local authority Pension Fund has been
appointed lead plaintiff in a case against a UK listed company.
The decision by Avon Pension Fund, which as a shareholder in GSK claims it
lost $2.7 million, to seek lead plaintiff in the case was taken in light of
its fiduciary responsibilities to its members and is in line with guidance
issued by the National Association of Pension Funds.
The NAPF policy sheet for trustees was published this year at its conference
in Edinburgh and advises UK trustees that their fiduciary duties to their
beneficiaries extends to monitoring fund investments and making informed
decisions about when and how to make the best recoveries. NAPF states that in
relation to securities class actions it is "self-evident that trustees have a
duty to protect the assets in their scheme" and that they should "not neglect
opportunities to recoup losses".
By far the majority of funds participate "passively" in US actions, in that
they wait for cases to be successfully resolved and then file claims to
participate in their share of the recovery. However, not all cases are
prosecuted as vigorously as they could or should be and many funds, such as
Avon, are finding that where the amount of losses are significant, it is
beneficial to get involved in leading the cases not only to assure a
significant financial recovery but also to make sure corporate governance
improvements are part of the settlement.
Commenting, Patrick Daniels, a partner at the Coughlin firm said, "We are
thrilled with the Court's decision appointing the Avon Pension Fund, and we
certainly are proud to represent them in this action."
"The Fund and its trustees take their fiduciary duties to their beneficiaries
seriously and are dedicated not only to making a significant financial
recovery for themselves and the class but improving the governance and
oversight at one of the premier drug companies in the world."
"The company has stumbled, and we certainly will hold those individuals
responsible to account, but we also want to remedy the problems and let the
Board and the executives get back to focusing on growing the business."
Richard Elsen
Gus Sellitto
The Byfield Consultancy
Tel: +44 (0)203 159 4171 or +44 (0)7886 757307 or +44
(0)203 159 4172 or +44 (0)7966 444131
Patrick Daniels
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman and Robbins LLP
H&R Block, Inc. faces a purported class action in the California Superior
Court, Orange County regarding business valuation services provided by RSM
EquiCo, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc., according to the
company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.
The suit is "Do Right's Plant Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., RSM McGladrey,
Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 06 CC00137," which
was filed on July 11, 2006.
The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation services
provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., including fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks unspecified damages,
restitution and equitable relief (Class Action Reporter, July 9, 2007).
H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com-- is a financial services
company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting
and business consulting services and products.
Three wage and hour cases that were filed in New Jersey Court against
Interstate Bakeries Corp. remain stayed due to the company's Chapter 11 filing.
The company was named in two wage and hour cases in New Jersey that have been
brought under state law, one of which has been brought on behalf of a putative
class of route sales representatives.
The case involving the putative class is:
-- "Ruzicka, et al. v. Interstate Brands Corp., et al.,
No. 03-CV 2846 (FLW) (Superior Court, Ocean City, New
Jersey).
The other case is:
-- "McCourt, et al. v. Interstate Brands Corp., No. 1-03-
CV-00220 (FLW) (D.N.J.)."
These cases are in their preliminary stages. As a result of the Interstate
Bakeries' Chapter 11 filing, these cases have been automatically stayed.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 4, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 25, 2007.
Voluntary Chapter 11 Filing
On Sept. 22, 2004, or the Petition Date, the company and each of its
wholly-owned subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, or the Bankruptcy Code, in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri, or the Bankruptcy Court
(Case Nos. 04-45814, 04-45816, 04-45817, 04-45818, 04-45819, 04-45820,
04-45821 and 04-45822).
On October 3, 2007, the Court granted IBC a 30-day extension of exclusive
periods to file and solicit acceptances of a plan of reorganization. IBC
originally sought an extension to
January 2008. The company said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that it may seek additional extension of the exclusive
periods.
The Court will convene a hearing to consider further extension of the
exclusivity period on November 7, 2007.
Kansas City, Missouri-based Interstate Bakeries Corp.
--http://www.interstatebakeriescorp.com-- is a wholesale baker and
distributor of fresh baked bread and sweet goods in the U.S.
An amended complaint was filed in a consolidated securities fraud class action
filed against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.
Initially, on Sept. 6, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund filed a
putative class action on behalf of itself and former holders of Michaels
The lawsuit named Michaels and all of its then-current directors as defendants.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or omitted
material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for
2004, 2005 and 2006, including, among other things:
-- that Michaels' reported financial results inflated its
reported earnings by not properly recording stock-based
compensation expense relating to the granting of stock
options;
-- that problems with Michaels' internal controls prevented
it from issuing accurate financial reports and
projections; and
-- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in
the granting of backdated stock options.
The plaintiff asserted claims against all of the defendants of violations of
Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder and violations of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
The plaintiff sought, among other relief, an indeterminate amount of damages
from the defendants and equitable or injunctive relief, including the
rescission of stock option grants.
Lead Plaintiff Named, Consolidated Complaint Filed
By an order dated Dec. 8, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund was named
the lead plaintiff in this action.
On Nov. 27, 2006, Albert Hulliung and James and Christine Ziolkowski (who had
previously filed two separate stockholder derivative actions, which were
consolidated on Nov. 7, 2006) filed a consolidated class action complaint
against Michaels and certain of its former officers and directors on behalf of
a class of other former shareholders.
The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or
omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for 1993 through
2006, including, among other things, failing to disclose Michaels' and the
defendants' alleged option backdating practices and the fact that Michaels and
the defendants had reported false financial statements as a result of those
The consolidated complaint also alleged that the proxy statements failed to
disclose:
-- that Michaels had problems with its internal controls
that prevented it from issuing accurate financial
reports and projections;
-- that because of improperly recorded stock-based
compensation expenses, Michaels' reported financial
results violated GAAP;
-- that Michaels' public disclosures presented an inflated
view of Michaels' earnings by understating Michaels's
past compensation expenses;
-- that Michaels faced substantial liability for its past
and ongoing backdating practices; and
The plaintiffs asserted claims against all defendants for violations of
promulgated thereunder, and sought, among other relief, an indeterminate
amount of damages from the defendants, as well as an award of attorneys fees
and costs.
Consolidation of Lawsuits
By an order dated Feb. 1, 2007, the Massachusetts Laborers'
Annuity Fund action was consolidated with the Hulliung/Ziolkowski action.
In that action, on May 21, 2007 the lead plaintiff, Massachusetts Laborers'
Annuity Fund, filed a motion for leave to file a first amended consolidated
class action complaint.
As proposed, the Amended Complaint names Michaels and certain of its current
and former officers and directors as defendants.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented and/or
omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for 2004, 2005,
and 2006, including, among others, failing to disclose:
-- Michaels' and the defendants' alleged option backdating
-- information regarding transactions and holdings of
Michaels Common Stock by certain trusts owned by or for
the benefit of two of Michaels' former officers and
directors and their family members; and
-- that Michaels and the defendants had reported false
financial statements as a result of those practices.
Further, the Amended Complaint makes allegations regarding the Company's
financial restatement of periods prior to 2006, as well as the recently
completed merger with entities affiliated with Bain Capital Partners LLC and
The Blackstone Group.
In the Amended Complaint, the lead plaintiff asserts claims against all
defendants for violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
The plaintiff seeks, among other relief:
-- an indeterminate amount of damages,
-- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
-- an award of attorneys fees and costs, and
-- equitable or injunctive relief, including the
On July 3, 2007, the court granted the motion of the lead plaintiff,
Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, for leave to file the proposed amended
On July 5, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed the amended complaint in the
proposed form filed with the court on May 21, 2007, according to the company's
Sept. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.
The suit is "Hulliung v. Bolen et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01083," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge David C.
Godbey.
William B. Federman, Esq.
Federman & Sherwood
10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
E-mail: wfederman@aol.com
Joe Kendall, Esq.
Provost Umphrey Law Firm
3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
E-mail: Provost_Dallas@yahoo.com
Patricia J. Villareal, Esq.
PO Box 660623, 2727 N Harwood St.
E-mail: pjvillareal@jonesday.com
Michael L. Smith, Esq.
Bickel & Brewer
1717 Main St., Suite 4800
E-mail: mls@bickelbrewer.com
A Nov. 26, 2007 trial date is slated for a purported securities fraud class
action filed against Oracle Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Initially, stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the company and its chief
executive officer on and after March 9, 2001.
Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised second amended
complaint. The last dismissal was with prejudice.
On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The revised second amended complaint named its chief executive officer, its
then chief financial officer (who currently is chairman of the company's board
of directors) and a former executive vice president as defendants.
This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock
during the period from Dec. 14, 2000 through March 1, 2001.
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements
about the company's actual and expected financial performance and the
performance of certain of the company's applications products, while certain
individual defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal
They further alleged that certain individual defendants sold Oracle stock
while in possession of material non-public information. In addition, they
also allege that the defendants engaged in accounting violations.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs,
and equitable and injunctive relief.
On July 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants
and a motion for summary judgment against the company's chief executive officer.
On Aug. 7, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended versions of these motions. The
parties' summary judgment motions are fully briefed.
Currently, the court has set no date for hearing on these motions. The court
has set a trial date of Nov. 26, 2007.
The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-0988,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Martin J. Jenkins with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.
Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
E-mail: jennie@libertylawoffice.com
Dorian Daley, Esq.
500 Oracle Parkway
Priceline.com Inc. continues to face several purported class actions over
hotel occupancy taxes, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
A number of cities and counties have filed putative class actions on behalf of
themselves and other allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within
the same respective state against the Company and other defendants, including,
but not in all cases:
-- Lowestfare.com Incorporated and Travelweb LLC, both of
which are subsidiaries of the Company;
-- Hotels.com, L.P.;
-- Hotels.com GP, LLC;
-- Hotwire, Inc.;
-- Cheaptickets, Inc.;
-- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
Services Group, Inc.);
-- Expedia, Inc.;
-- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
-- Maupintour Holding LLC;
-- Orbitz, Inc.;
-- Orbitz, LLC;
-- Site59.com, LLC;
-- Travelocity.com, Inc.;
-- Travelocity.com LP; and
-- Travelnow.com, Inc.
Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated each
jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each ordinance.
Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties
available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.
Such actions include:
-- "City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al."
-- "City of Fairview Heights v. Orbitz, Inc., et al."
-- "City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
-- "City of Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
et al."
-- "Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
-- "City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
-- "City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
-- "Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. and
Marshall County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
-- "City of Orange, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
-- "City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
-- "City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
-- "Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
-- "County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et
-- "City of Fayetteville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
The following developments regarding such legal proceedings occurred during or
after the three months ended June 30, 2007:
"City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al."
On March 2, 2007, the City of Los Angeles filed a third amended complaint. On
April 11, 2007, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the third
On July 27, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion without prejudice
and stayed further proceedings pending the City's compliance with its
administrative procedures for tax collection.
"City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
On Aug. 2, 2007, the City of Findlay filed a motion seeking leave to amend its
complaint to withdraw its allegations seeking to assert claims on behalf of a
state-wide class of Ohio cities, counties and townships that have enacted
occupancy or excise taxes on lodging. That motion is pending.
"City of Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
On Feb. 9, 2007, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs'
claims for plaintiffs' failure to exhaust the administrative procedures
required by Georgia law and plaintiffs' respective ordinances.
On May 10, 2007, the court issued an opinion denying defendants' motion but
concluding that plaintiffs were required to estimate, assess and attempt to
collect the taxes at issue.
The court stayed further litigation until at least Aug. 28, 2007 to permit
plaintiffs to comply with those administrative procedures.
Since May 10, 2007, certain of the plaintiffs have sent the Company and other
defendants notices of deficiency and requests for reports regarding hotel
reservation transactions in their respective jurisdictions, to which the
Company has responded.
"Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
On March 29, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 13, 2007, the defendants moved for reconsideration of
that decision or, in the alternative, interlocutory appeal.
On July 31, 2007, the court conducted oral argument on defendants' motion for
reconsideration or interlocutory appeal, which remains pending. The parties
are currently conducting discovery.
"City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
On May 16 and 17, 2007, the court conducted a hearing on the City of San
Antonio's motion for class certification. That motion remains pending.
"City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
On April 18, 2007, the City of Gallup moved to dismiss its action voluntarily
and without prejudice. The court granted that motion and the action was
dismissed the same day.
"City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
On April 12, 2007, the defendants withdrew their previously filed motion to
stay the action and filed a motion to dismiss the City of Jacksonville's
On June 18, 2007, the court conducted oral argument on that motion, which
remains pending.
"City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
On Sept. 25, 2006, the Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint. On Sept. 27, 2006, the Company and other defendants moved to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, where the City of Findlay case is pending.
On Jan 8, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that
the case be transferred to the Northern District of Ohio.
Plaintiffs objected to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendations.
They also filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to strike all class
action allegations from the complaint.
On July 10, 2007, the court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendations and transferred the case to the Northern District of Ohio.
On July 23, 2007, the court in the Northern District of Ohio granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Consumer Sales Practices Act
claims and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining claims, adopting
the reasoning of the court's opinion on the motion to dismiss in the City of
Findlay case.
The same day, the court in the Northern District of Ohio granted plaintiffs
leave to amend the complaint to strike all class allegations.
On July 30, 2007, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for leave to amend the
complaint, and thus seek to continue to assert claims on behalf of a putative
class of Ohio cities, counties and townships that have enacted occupancy or
excise taxes on lodging.
"City of Fayetteville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
On July 24, 2007, the City of Fayetteville filed an amended complaint
correcting the identification of certain defendants.
On Aug. 7, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. That
motion is being briefed.
In addition to those cases discussed above, the following additional legal
proceedings were filed during or after the three months ended June 30, 2007:
"City of Jefferson, Missouri v. Hotels.com, LP, et al."
On June 27, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit
Court of Cole County, Missouri by the City of Jefferson, Missouri on behalf of
itself and a putative class of Missouri cities, counties and governments that
have enacted taxes on lodging.
In addition to the claim for hotel taxes, the complaint also asserted claims
for violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, conversion, unjust
enrichment, declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duties and a
constructive trust. The Company has not been served with the complaint.
On July 6, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico by the City of Gallup on behalf of itself and a
putative class of New Mexico taxing authorities that have enacted lodgers'
taxes.
The complaint asserts claims for violation of the New Mexico Lodger's Tax Act
and municipal ordinances. The claims are brought by the City of Gallup, the
same plaintiff whose previous suit against the defendants was voluntarily
dismissed on April 18, 2007 (discussed above). The Company has not been
served with the complaint.
priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company
that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline
tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination
priceline.com, Inc. continues to face the purported class action, "Marshall,
et al. v. priceline.com, Inc." in the Superior Court of the state of Delaware
for New Castle County.
On Feb. 17, 2005, Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals filed the suit
on behalf of themselves and a putative class of allegedly similarly situated
consumers.
The complaint alleged that the company violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud
Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, Section 2511, et seq., relating to its disclosures
and charges to customers to cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax
ordinances nationwide, and service fees.
The company moved to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2005. It also moved
to stay discovery until a determination of its motion to dismiss the complaint
and the Court granted that stay on May 11, 2005.
On June 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that asserts claims
under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and for breach of contract and the
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The amended complaint seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.
On July 15, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on the basis that it fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of
action. The company's motion to dismiss was heard by the court on Nov. 4,
2005 and the parties are awaiting a decision.
The class action remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form
priceline.com, Inc. continues to face the purported consumer class action,
"Bush, et al. v. Cheaptickets, Inc., et al.," in the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles.
On Feb. 17, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in Superior
Court for County of Los Angeles by Ronald Bush and three other individuals on
behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated California
consumers against the company and several of the same defendants as named in
"City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al." (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
9, 2007).
The complaint alleges each of the defendants engaged in acts of unfair
competition in violation of Section 17200 relating to their respective
disclosures and charges to customers to cover taxes under the above ordinances
of the City of Los Angeles and other California cities, and service fees.
The complaint seeks restitution, relief for alleged conversion, including
punitive damages, injunctive relief, and imposition of a constructive trust.
On July 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding claims pursuant
to California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750, et seq.
and claims for breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing.
On Dec. 2, 2005, the court ordered limited discovery and ordered that motions
challenging the amended complaint would be coordinated with any similar
motions filed in the City of Los Angeles action.
Service Corp. International continues to face the consolidated securities
class action, "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corp. International, et
al., Civil Action 04-MD-1609," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.
The suit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits:
-- "Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corp. International,
et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL," in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada;
-- "Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corp. International,
et. al., Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL," in the U.S.
District for the District of Nevada; and
-- "Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corp. International,
et al., Cause No. 04-CV-20114," in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The lawsuit names as defendants Service Corp. and several of its current and
former executive officers or directors. It is a purported class action
alleging that the defendants failed to disclose the unlawful treatment of
human remains and gravesites at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale and West
Palm Beach, Florida.
The suit is "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corp. International et al.,
Case No. 4:04-md-01609," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Lynn N. Hughes.
Representing the lead plaintiff are:
Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com
Christopher L. Nelson, Esq.
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
Three Bala Plz., E. Ste. 400
Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
J. Clifford Gunter III, Esq.
Bracewell and Giuliani LLP
711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300
Roger B. Greenberg, Esq.
Schwartz Junell et al.
909 Fannin, Ste. 2000
E-mail: rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com
A subsidiary of Service Corp. International continues to face a suit filed in
the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, alleging that it improperly handled remains, did not keep adequate
records of interments, and engaged in various other improprieties in
connection with the operation of the cemetery.
The suit was filed Dec. 5, 2005 by Maria Valls, Pedro Valls and Roberto Valls,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated against SCI Funeral
Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Memorial Plan a/k/a Flagler Memorial Park,
John Does and Jane Does (Case No. 23693CA08).
An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2006. Plaintiffs have requested
that the court certify this matter as a class action.
The plaintiffs seek to certify as a class all family members of persons buried
at the cemetery. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and have
reserved the right to seek leave from the Court to claim punitive damages.
The plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs are appealing the summary judgment ruling in the matter, "Mary
Louise Baudino, et al. v. Service Corp. International, et al. (Case No.
BC324007)," which is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The case was filed in 2004 by plaintiffs' counsel in the lawsuit filed by
David Hijar against SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., SCI Funeral Services,
Inc., and Service Corp. International, (Cause Number 2002-740).
The Baudino Lawsuit makes claims similar to those made in the Hijar lawsuit.
However, the Baudino Lawsuit seeks a nation-wide class of plaintiffs.
The Hijar lawsuit, pending in the County Court of El Paso, County, Texas,
County Court at Law Number Three, involves a statewide class action brought on
behalf of all persons, entities and organizations that purchased funeral
services from the company or its subsidiaries in Texas at any time since March
Plaintiffs allege that federal and Texas funeral related regulations and/or
statutes required the company to disclose its markups on all items obtained
from third parties in connection with funeral service contracts and that the
failure to make certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract
and other legal claims.
The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages.
They also seek attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and unspecified "injunctive and declaratory relief."
On Sept. 15, 2006, the trial court granted the company's motion for summary
judgment on the merits of plaintiffs claims.
Plaintiffs are appealing the summary judgment ruling, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.
The Supreme Court of Texas requested that Service Corp. International file a
response to a petition for review the decertification of the matter, "David
Hijar v. SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., SCI Funeral Services, Inc., and
Service Corp. International, Cause Number 2002-740."
The Hijar Lawsuit -- originally filed in filed in the County Court of El Paso,
County, Texas, County Court at Law Number Three -- involves a statewide class
action brought on behalf of all persons, entities and organizations that
purchased funeral services from the company or its subsidiaries in Texas at
any time since March 18, 1998.
The company denies that the plaintiffs have standing to sue for violations of
the Texas Occupations Code or the Rules; denies that plaintiffs have standing
to sue for violations under the relevant regulations and statutes; denies that
any breaches of contractual terms occurred; and on other grounds denies
liability on all of the plaintiffs' claims.
Finally, the company denies that the Hijar Lawsuit satisfies the requirements
In May 2004, the trial court heard summary judgment cross-motions filed by the
company and the plaintiff, at that time, the only plaintiff.
The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and
denied the company's motion. In its partial summary judgment order, the trial
court made certain findings to govern the case, consistent with its summary
judgment ruling. The company's request for rehearing was denied.
During the course of the Hijar Lawsuit, the parties have disputed the proper
scope and substance of discovery. Following briefing by both parties and
evidentiary hearings, the trial court entered three orders against the company
that are the subject of appellate review:
-- a January 2005 discovery sanctions order;
-- an April 2005 discovery sanctions order; and
-- an April 2005 certification order, certifying a class
and two subclasses.
On April 29, 2005, the company filed an appeal regarding the certification
In the certification appeal the court of appeals issued an opinion holding
that the plaintiffs do not have a private right of action for monetary damages
under the relevant regulations and statutes.
The opinion concludes that the plaintiffs do not have standing to assert their
claims for monetary damages on behalf of themselves or the class.
The court of appeals therefore reversed the trial courts order certifying a
class, rendered judgment against the plaintiffs on their claims for damages,
and remanded the remaining general individual claims for injunctive relief
back to the trial court (without opining on the merits of those claims) for
further handling consistent with the courts opinion.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing on Aug. 11, 2006. On Jan. 11, 2007,
in response to the motion, the court of appeals issued a substitute opinion in
which the court revised a portion of its discussion but reached the same
result on certification (i.e., the class was decertified).
Plaintiffs second motion for rehearing was denied by the court of appeals on
On March 20, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court
of Texas. The Supreme Court of Texas requested that the company file a
response to the petition for review, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and
cemeteries.
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois will hold a fairness hearing on
Dec. 10, 2007 for a proposed $5,000,000 settlement in matter, "Fisch v. SSA
Global Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CH-10636."
The hearing will be held before Judge William O. Maki, at the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Richard J. Daley Center, 50 West Washington Street, Room 2302,
Chicago, Illinois.
Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or
before Nov. 9, 2007. Deadline for the submission of proof of claim forms is
on Dec. 27, 2007.
Stephen Fisch, an SSA Global Technologies Inc. stockholder filed the suit
against the company to stop directors' plans to sell the firm to Infor Global
Solutions for a price that plaintiff says undervalues the company (Class
Action Reporter, June 8, 2006).
Mr. Fisch brought the suit as a class action on behalf of himself and other
common stockholders who together own 17 percent of the company.
The suit alleges that SSA board of directors and majority shareholders
Cerberus Capital Management LP and General Atlantic LLC, who own the remaining
83 percent of the company, have breached their fiduciary duties.
SSA is being sold for $1.4 billion, which values the company's shares at
$19.50 each. The share price represents a 26 percent premium over the average
stock price and a 77 percent gain over the 2005 initial public offering price
of $11 per share.
The suit says the price is low because it is based on the company's January
2006 financial report, which was not corrected after the company released its
financial results to the public.
It names as defendants SSA Global, its directors, Chief Executive Michael
Greenough, and majority shareholders Cerberus and General Atlantic.
The plaintiff wanted the court to keep SSA from going through with the planned
sale unless the company gets the highest possible price for shareholders.
In July 2006, Infor Global Solutions acquired SSA Global.
For more details, contact:
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
E-mail: elleng@csgrr.com
Web site: http://www.csgrr.com
Plaintiffs in a class action against Stewart Enterprises, Inc. over its
funeral goods and services operations are appealing the dismissal by the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles of an
affiliate of Service Corp. International (SCI) from the case.
The suit, "Henrietta Torres and Teresa Fiore, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated and the General Public v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,
et al., Case No. BC328961," was filed on Feb. 17, 2005 against the company and
several other defendants.
The purported class action was brought on behalf of a nationwide class defined
to include all persons, entities and organizations who purchased funeral goods
and/or services in the U.S. from defendants at any time on or after Feb. 17, 2001.
The suit named the company and several of its Southern California affiliates
as defendants. It sought to assert claims against a class of all entities
located anywhere in the U.S. whose ultimate parent corporation has been the
company at any time on or after Feb. 17, 2001.
In May 2005, the court ruled that this case was related to similar actions
against SCI and Alderwoods Group, Inc., and designated SCI case as the lead
In response, on August 29, 2005, the plaintiffs in each of the three cases
filed amended complaints. SCI has filed a demurrer in its case, and the
company joined in that demurrer on October 6, 2005.
The case against the company effectively has been held in abeyance while the
court tests plaintiff's legal theories in the lead case.
Rulings on legal issues in the lead case will apply equally in the case
against the company, and the court has allowed the company to participate in
hearings and briefings in the lead case.
As a result of demurrers, the plaintiff in the lead case has amended her
complaint twice. On Jan. 31, 2006, however, the court overruled SCI demurrer
to the third amended complaint and established a schedule leading to hearing
on a motion for summary judgment in early July to test the viability of the
named plaintiff's claim against SCI.
On Aug. 14, 2006, the court heard oral argument on cross-motions for summary
judgment. The cross-motions are pending.
The third amended complaint in the lead case alleges that the SCI defendants
violated the "Funeral Rule" promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission by
failing to disclose that the prices of certain goods and services they
obtained from third parties specifically on the plaintiff's behalf exceeded
what the defendants paid for them.
Plaintiff alleges that by failing to comply with the Funeral Rule, defendants:
-- breached contracts with the plaintiffs;
-- were unjustly enriched; and
-- engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practices in violation of a provision of California's
Business and Professions Code.
The plaintiff seeks restitution damages, disgorgement, interest, costs and
In September and October 2006, the court granted the motion for summary
judgment filed by the SCI affiliate with whom the plaintiff had contracted and
entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of that SCI affiliate.
On Dec. 8, 2006, the plaintiff noticed an appeal of this judgment.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 7, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2007.
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.stewartenterprises.com/-- is a
provider of funeral and cemetery products and services in the death care
industry in the U.S. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides a range
of funeral merchandise and services, along with cemetery property, merchandise
and services, both at the time of need and on a pre-need basis.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages ranging from $99 million to $1.5 billion in a
consolidated antitrust class action pending against Stewart Enterprises, Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, according to
the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing in the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.
Funeral Consumers Alliance Case
One of the purported class actions was filed by Funeral Consumers Alliance,
Inc., et al. against:
* Service Corporation International,
* Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
* Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,
* Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and
* Batesville Casket Co.
The Case, No. H-05-3394, was originally filed on May 2, 2005, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a
nationwide class defined to include all consumers who purchased a Batesville
casket from the funeral home defendants at any time.
The court consolidated it with five subsequently filed and substantially
similar cases. The matter was known as the Consolidated Consumer Cases.
The Consolidated Consumer Cases allege that the defendants acted jointly to
reduce competition from independent casket discounters and fix and maintain
prices on caskets in violation of the federal antitrust laws and California's
Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.
At the defendants' request, in late September 2005, the court transferred the
Consolidated Consumer Cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
The transferred Consolidated Consumer Cases have been consolidated before a
single judge in the Southern District of Texas.
On Nov. 10, 2006, after the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, the
company answered the first amended consolidated class action complaint,
denying liability and asserting various affirmative defenses.
Discovery is underway. The court conducted a hearing on plaintiffs' motion
for class certification on Dec. 4-7, 2006, and has taken the motion under
advisement.
Fact discovery has been completed, and expert discovery is ongoing.
In April 2007, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating that the
damages sought from all defendants would be in the range of approximately $950
million to approximately $1.5 billion, before trebling.
Pioneer Valley Case
On July 8, 2005, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California by Pioneer Valley Casket Co.,
Inc., and others against:
-- Service Corp. International,
-- Stewart Enterprises, Inc.,
-- Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and
-- Batesville Casket Co.
The Pioneer Valley Case involves the same claims asserted in the Consolidated
Consumer Cases, except that it was brought on behalf of a nationwide class
defined to include only independent casket retailers.
On July 15, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to plead
facts sufficient to establish viable antitrust and unfair competition claims.
On Sept. 9, 2005, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, without
prejudice, but ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended and consolidated
complaint that satisfies the objections raised in the motions to dismiss.
At the defendants' request, the court also issued orders in late September
2005 transferring the Consolidated Consumer Cases and the Pioneer Valley Case
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
single judge in the Southern District of Texas. The Pioneer Valley Case has
been consolidated with these cases for purposes of discovery only.
On October 12, 2005, the consumer plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint. Defendants then filed motions to dismiss
the first amended complaint.
On October 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed a first amended complaint.
Defendants then filed motions to dismiss. Discovery is underway in both cases.
On Sept. 14, 2006, the magistrate recommended that all motions to dismiss be
denied. The parties have 10 days to file written objections with the district
court judge.
A hearing on whether the matters may proceed as class actions was scheduled
for Dec. 5, 2006.
damages sought from all defendants would be approximately $99.0 million,
before trebling.
The suit is "Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc. et al. v. Service Corporation
International., Case No. 4:05-cv-03394," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to
Judge Calvin Botley.
Jonathan S. Abady, Esq.
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff
E-mail: jabady@ecbalaw.com
Gordon Ball, Esq.
Ball & Scott, 550 W. Main Ave., Ste. 750
E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com
Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP
Representing the company is:
Mark A. Cunningham, Esq.
Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre
201 St. Charles Ave
Web site: http://www.joneswalker.com
Toshiba America Consumer Products LLC, of Wayne, N.J., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 142,000 Toshiba AC
adapters sold with portable DVD players.
The company said the AC adapters can fail, causing the portable DVD player to
overheat, posing a burn hazard to consumers.
Toshiba has received two reports of minor damage to the bottom of the DVD
player. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves the AC adapter sold with the Toshiba portable DVD player
Model SD-P1600. "Toshiba" and ADPV16 can be found on the side of the adapter.
"Toshiba", Model SD-P1600, and the serial number can be found on a rating
label on the bottom of the cabinet for the DVD player.
These recalled AC adapters were manufactured in China and are being sold at
consumer electronics stores nationwide from January 2005 through April 2006
for between $200 and $230.
Pictures of recalled AC adapters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08015a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08015b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08015c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08015d.jpg
Consumers are advised to stop using the AC adapters immediately and contact
Toshiba Customer Solutions for a replacement adapter.
For additional information, contact Toshiba Customer Solutions toll-free at
(877) 290-6064 between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.tacp.com
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is appealing an award made in the class action,
"Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," a case in which the plaintiffs allege
that they were not provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with California
law, and seek monetary damages and injunctive relief.
A jury trial on the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages concluded on Dec.
22, 2005. The jury returned a verdict of approximately $57 million in
statutory penalties and $115 million in punitive damages.
Following a bench trial in June 2006, the judge entered an order allowing
some, but not all, of the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs.
On Dec. 27, 2006, the judge entered an order awarding the plaintiffs an
additional amount of approximately $26 million in costs and attorneys' fees.
The company believes it has substantial arguments on appeal, and on Jan. 31,
2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated in October
1969, operates retail stores in various formats around the world.
The Los Angeles Superior Court has yet to rule on a motion to certify a class
in the case, "Cruz v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," which challenges the methodology
of payments made under various associate incentive bonus plans.
The suit is brought on behalf of present and former employees in California
Wal-Mart, Supercenter, and Sam's Club stores, who challenge Wal-Mart's
practice of reducing or withholding incentive wages under Wal-Mart's incentive
compensation program.
In computing the amount of annual "bonus" compensation payments to store
employees, Wal-Mart bases that amount on a measure of store profitability that
deducts from profits a number of charges that by law must be borne by
employers, including the cost of workers' compensation, medical and physical
examinations of employees, shrink (theft losses), breakage of merchandise, and
other employer expenses.
As a result, many employees receive no bonus payments even though their stores
are profitable, and many others receive reduced bonuses.
The case was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Wal-Mart removed the case
to federal court in Los Angeles.
The federal court remanded the case to the Superior Court, where it is
proceeding toward a class action determination.
The suit is "Cruz et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. BC 304850," filed
in Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. County.
Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq.
Michael J. Gray, Esq.
Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian
300 Lakeside Drive - Suite 1000
E-mail: info@gdblegal.com
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 1st Circuit, upheld the 19th Judicial
District Court's ruling, which ruled against Exxon Mobil Corp., in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Sadie Mae Terrance and other plaintiffs for
James Terrance.
Judges Carter, Pettigrew, and Welch entered decision of Case No. 2006 CA 2234
on Sept. 14, 2007.
From 1964 through 1970, Mr. Terrance worked at the Baton Rouge Exxon refinery
as a maintenance laborer for two different employers at different times,
Jacobs Constructors and Nichols Construction Co.
Exxon contracted with various construction companies like Nichols and Jacobs
for maintenance and construction work at the Exxon refinery.
The work that Mr. Terrance performed at Exxon involved the chipping and
stripping of insulation off of pipes, as well as the cleanup and disposal of
the old insulation material.
Mr. Terrance also worked at other oil and gas refineries, including Dow
Chemical Co., performing various maintenance/labor jobs, but not the routine
handling of large quantities of insulation containing asbestos.
In September 2001, Mr. Terrance was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He died on
After Mr. Terrance's death, Mrs. Terrance and their adult children filed a
wrongful death and survival action suit individually, and on behalf of Mr.
Terrance's estate, against the manufacturers and distributors of the ACPs to
which Mr. Terrance had been exposed, Mr. Terrance's various employers, and the
numerous premises owners where Mr. Terrance was exposed to the ACPs.
The lawsuit alleged that due to the negligence, strict liability, and
intentional acts of the defendants, Mr. Terrance had contracted and died from
mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to ACPs. At the time of trial, Exxon
remained as the sole defendant and the claim at trial involved Mr. Terrance's
survival action.
Before trial, the trial court made a legal determination that Mr. Terrance's
claim against the premises owners (Exxon and Dow) was not barred by the
Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act (LWCA) because Mr. Terrance did not
qualify as a statutory employee of the premises owners, and because
mesothelioma was not a covered occupational disease under the version of the
LWCA in effect at the time of Mr. Terrance's exposure to asbestos.
After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, finding
that Mr. Terrance's mesothelioma was caused by his exposure to asbestos.
The jury unanimously found that Exxon was solely at fault in causing Mr.
Terrance's mesothelioma and resulting death. The jury awarded total general
damages in the amount of US$5 million.
Exxon's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and new trial
or remittitur were denied, judgment was rendered in accordance with the jury
verdict, and Exxon's appeal followed.
Finding that reasonable minds could differ, the standard for denying JNOV, and
that the jury's verdict is supportable by a fair interpretation of the
evidence, as is required for denial of a new trial motion, the Appeals Court
found no manifest error in the trial court's denial of Exxon's motions for
JNOV and new trial.
Therefore, the Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's judgment rendered in
accordance with the jury verdict.
Lewis O. Unglesby, Robert M. Marionneaux Jr., and John F. McKay, Baton Rouge,
La., represented Sadie Mae Terrance and other Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Gary A. Bezet, Barrye P. Miyagi, Gregory M. Anding, Carol L. Galloway, and
Alicia M. Wheeler, Baton Rouge, La., represented Exxon Mobil Corp.
H.B. Fuller Co., during the first nine months of 2007, settled six
asbestos-related lawsuits for US$405,000, in which its insurers have paid or
are expected to pay US$292,000 of that amount, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Oct. 5, 2007.
As of Sept. 1, 2007, the Company had recorded US$437,000 for probable
liabilities and US$153,000 for insurance recoveries related to asbestos claims.
The Company and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products
containing asbestos manufactured more than 25 years ago.
The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many of
these cases, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of
exposure to products manufactured by the Company or its subsidiaries.
The Company is typically dismissed as a defendant in these cases without payment.
A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements relating to
asbestos-related litigation involving the Company continues to be paid by
third parties, including indemnification under provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which the Company acquired a business from a third party.
Historically, this third party routinely defended all cases tendered to it and
paid settlement amounts resulting from those cases. In the 1990s, the third
party sporadically reserved its rights, but continued to defend and settle all
asbestos-related claims tendered to it by the Company.
In 2002, the third party rejected the tender of certain cases by the Company
and indicated it would seek contributions from the Company for past defense
costs, settlements and judgments.
However, this third party has continued to defend and pay settlement amounts,
under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the
third party by the Company.
The Company has insurance policies that generally provide coverage for
asbestos liabilities (including defense costs). Historically, insurers have
paid a significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation involving the Company. However, certain of the
Company's insurers are insolvent.
During 2005, the Company and a number of its insurers entered into a
cost-sharing agreement that provides for the allocation of defense costs,
settlements and judgments among these insurers and the company in certain
asbestos-related lawsuits.
During the year ended Dec. 2, 2006, the Company settled five asbestos-related
lawsuits, totaling US$613,000. The Company's insurers have paid or are
expected to pay US$415,000 of these settlement amounts.
St. Paul, Minn.-based H.B. Fuller Co., which is known for making adhesives,
also makes sealants, powder coatings for metals (office furniture,
appliances), and liquid paints (for the Latin American market).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the Board of Veterans'
Appeals' June 30, 2004 decision, which denied Robert M. Levine service
connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and asbestosis.
Judge Lance entered decision of Case No. 04-1567 on Sept. 19, 2007.
Mr. Levine served in the U.S. Navy from December 1942 until May 1944. In
January 2000, he filed an informal claim with the St. Petersburg, Fla., VA
regional office (RO). Two months later, he a filed a formal claim for a
"[l]ung condition caused by asbestos exposure."
In April 2000, the RO sent Mr. Levine a letter discussing the status of his
claim and explaining the general requirements for establishing service
connection for a disease or injury.
The following month, the RO denied him service connection for COPD and
asbestosis. Mr. Levine appealed.
In October 2000, the RO issued a Statement of Case (SOC) affirming its denial
of Mr. Levine's claims. A few days later, Mr. Levine perfected his appeal to
the Board.
In January 2003, the Board's Case Development Unit determined that additional
evidence was needed. The Board notified Mr. Levine of this fact in April 2003
and May 2003.
In September 2003, the Board remanded Mr. Levine's claims to the RO for
additional development and readjudication. In January 2004, the Appeals
Management Center (AMC) notified Mr. Levine that it, not the RO, would be
developing his claim on remand.
In February 2004, Mr. Levine received a new VA examination. The following
month, the AMC sent him a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) denying
his claims.
In June 2004, the Board issued the decision here on appeal. On the merits of
his claims, the Board found that Mr. Levine's COPD was not incurred in, or
aggravated by, his military service. The Board further found that the medical
evidence of record did not establish that Mr. Levine had asbestosis.
Accordingly, the Board denied both of his claims.
After consideration of the briefs of R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, and Mr. Levine, and a review of the record, the Appeals Court
affirmed the Board's June 30, 2004 decision.
Chester Black's action against Georgia-Pacific Corp. was settled on Oct. 2,
2007 in the Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
Mr. Black's case, which began trial on Sept. 25, 2007, was also filed against
John Crane Inc.
Asbestos cases rarely go to trial. In Madison County they have normally
settled out of court for millions of dollars.
Madison County Associate Judge Tom Chapman presided over the trial.
Mr. Black, of Joplin, Mo., alleged he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or
otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from products he
was working with or around.
Represented by Randy Gori of The Goldenberg firm in Edwardsville, Ill., Mr.
Black filed suit earlier this year, seeking compensatory and punitive damages
in excess of US$400,000. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in May 2006.
Jeff Hebrank of Edwardsville, Ill., represents Georgia-Pacific, which was
granted defense verdicts in the last two Madison County trials they were
involved in.
Judge Chapman granted a directed verdict for John Crane after Mr. Gori rested
his case.
An asbestos trial began on Oct. 2, 2007. The case is being brought by John
Larson of Missouri.
Mr. Larson was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Nov. 15, 2006, and claims his
father, William Larson, would bring asbestos dust home on his clothes after
which time it would again become airborne.
Mr. Larson claims he was repeatedly exposed to asbestos dust from his father's
clothing and person.
Mr. Larson is represented by Ted Gianaris of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.
Associate Judge Clarence Harrison is presiding over the trial that is expected
to last five to six days.
The Alice Springs Town Council in Alice Springs, Northern Territory,
Australia, says it is still negotiating with the construction company Sitzler
Brothers on the cost of work to remove asbestos from the Civic Centre lawns,
ABC News reports.
Council chief executive officer Rex Mooney says the council spent AUD8,000 on
fencing and tests of the contaminated area in July 2007 and August 2007.
The lawns have since been cleared of asbestos material and the council has
moved to reassure residents that no more asbestos has been found on the lawns.
Mr. Mooney says the Council is in talks with Sitzler Brothers about the
AUD11,000 cost of remedial works at the site. He says the lawns have been
partially fenced off again, but there is no cause for alarm.
Asbestos was found in a steam pipe, which burst on Oct. 6, 2007 in front of
the Edward W. Brooke Courthouse on New Chardon St. in Boston, 7 News Boston
The steam pipe sent chunks of asphalt flying and released a small amount of
asbestos in the area, the Fire Department said.
The pipe is owned by Trigen-Boston Energy Corp., which operates a 22-mile
network of steam pipes beneath city streets.
Nancy Sterling, a Company spokeswoman, said tests showed that asbestos was not
released into the air, but trace amounts were found in dust on the cars and
immediate area. She said the asbestos came from material that was wrapped
around the pipe.
The pipe, over 30 years old, broke; spewing steam and sending a manhole cover
flying.
"It was like a volcano erupted," said witness Mike Dolaher, who works at the
gas station across from the explosion.
The steam release was the second to hit Boston streets in less than a month.
It did not cause any injuries but did require a portion of the street to be
closed and the evacuation of a three-story apartment building, Steve
MacDonald, spokesman for the Fire Department, said.
Authorities believe there is no risk of harm to people.
John Della Bosca, Education Minister of New South Wales, Australia, has
ordered WorkCover and his department to reassess the risk of a building with
asbestos near Maraylya Public School, a north-western Sydney primary school,
Mr. Della Bosca says as soon as the asbestos was discovered, the department
boarded up the building, which is on a different block to the school and has a
fence around it. He says the department was always going to pay for the
demolition, but it was a question of timing.
Mr. Della Bosca said, "I'm advised that as things currently stand there is
effectively zero risk in relation to this particular asbestos, but you can
never be too certain."
David Parker, who worked as an executive officer at the Prestwich Unemployment
Benefit Office in Longfield, Kent, U.K., has filed a high court asbestos
lawsuit against the U.K. Government for up to GBP200,000 compensation, This Is
Lancashire reports.
The 67-year-old Mr. Parker is suffering from malignant mesothelioma, according
to a high court writ.
Mr. Parker is claiming damages for work and pensions from the secretary of
state, whom he blames for his condition.
The writ says he developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos when
he worked as a civil servant for the secretary of state's predecessors, the
Ministry of Labor, between 1967 and 2000.
The office was subdivided with asbestos partitions, which were in poor
condition, and between 1978 and 1984 the office underwent major refurbishment,
when the partitions were demolished and false ceilings fitted, it is alleged.
At the end of the refurbishment work, Mr. Parker was given a letter on June
12, 1984, confirming that asbestos had been found inside the office, the writ
The writ says that Mr. Parker became breathless in June 2006, and then
developed chest pain. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February 2007, and
he is undergoing chemotherapy but the writ claims the disease is expected to
cut his life short by around 14 years.
Mr. Parker accuses the secretary of state of negligence and breach of
statutory duty and says this caused his illness. He says there was a failure
to provide a safe place or system of work, failure to warn him of the dangers
of asbestos, and failure to keep his workplace properly ventilated.
Asbestos-related illnesses are plaguing mining communities in South Africa's
Northern Cape province, Agence France-Presse reports.
Robert Devenish is one of tens of thousands of South Africans, most of them in
small Northern Cape towns, who contracted asbestos-related diseases, a
hangover from the country's heyday as one of the world's top producers of the
substance believed as far back as the 1920s to pose serious health risks.
Asbestos mining stopped in South Africa in the mid-1980s, but people are still
being diagnosed with diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis on a regular
basis, while many more continue to be at risk from un-rehabilitated sites.
Several uses for asbestos, once a popular insulator due to its heat resistant
properties, have been banned around the world.
Foreign-owned mining companies have in the past six years paid out tens of
millions of dollars in settlements from which an estimated 10,000 South
African victims of their asbestos extracting activities have benefited so far.
Mesothelioma sufferers like Mr. Devenish got ZAR28,000 (just over US4,000 or
EUR2,800) each.
Prieska, South Africa, doctor Gideon Smith said his longest surviving
mesothelioma patient died two years after being diagnosed. However, some are
known to have lived for five years. He told AFP he diagnosed five to 10 cases
of mesothelioma per year in the town of about 20,000.
Studies have put the prevalence of asbestos-related diseases in Northern Cape
mining areas as high as 50 percent of the population.
Yet piles of raw asbestos fibers are still to be found dumped and uncovered,
while rehabilitation work has yet to be done on several mine dumps that
threaten communities within a 100-kilometre (62-mile) radius with wind
Some secondary roads in the province contain asbestos fibers visible to the
naked eye, and many schools and homes in towns like Prieska still have
asbestos in their frames.
W.R. Grace & Co.'s attorneys are challenging a federal appeals court ruling
that restored criminal charges of "knowing endangerment" to the U.S.
Government's asbestos case against the Company and its top managers, The
Associated Press reports.
In September 2007, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals reversed or revised six decisions handed down in 2006 by U.S. District
Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont.
The panel's rulings "restored the heart of the government's case: the
allegation that Grace and its top corporate officials conspired to knowingly
endanger Grace employees and the citizens of Libby, Montana," said David M.
Uhlmann, former chief of the U.S. Justice Department's Environmental Crimes
However, one week after the panel ruled in favor of the federal government,
attorneys for Grace filed motions indicating the Company will fight the
decision. Attorneys for Grace have requested more time to petition the court
for a rehearing.
The extension was granted, giving Grace until Nov. 5, 2007 to submit documents
arguing the panel erred in its findings of fact. Grace will request a
rehearing before the same three-judge panel, before the whole court, or both.
A 2005 indictment charged Grace and seven of its former managers, one of whom
died in February 2007, with conspiring to conceal health risks posed years ago
by the company's Libby vermiculite mine, closed since 1990. Hundreds of people
in Libby have fallen sick, some fatally, from exposure to asbestos in vermiculite.
Besides reviving the knowing endangerment charge, the appeals court panel
reversed decisions that would have narrowed the definition of asbestos,
disallowed a long list of evidence and limited the materials available to
expert witnesses at trial. Grace has also petitioned the 9th Circuit for a
rehearing on those decisions, and a decision is pending.
Judge Molloy has presided over years of legal wrangling between Grace and the
government as both sides prepare for a so-called "megatrial" in Missoula. The
trial is expected to open in late winter or early spring.
As the initial Sept. 11, 2006 trial date approached, defense lawyers argued
that prosecutors had waited too long to file criminal charges, exceeding the
five-year statute of limitations governing federal criminal prosecutions.
Judge Molloy sided with Grace, saying the government had failed to allege
overt criminal acts within the required time frame.
In reversing Judge Molloy's decision, the panel said the government had acted
quickly to fix the statute of limitations problem by submitting a superseding
indictment spelling out the overt criminal acts.
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3, California, affirmed an appeal
filed by Thorpe Insulation Co. in an asbestos-related action styled Steven
Marc Harowitz, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Thorpe Insulation Co., Defendant
and Appellant.
Judges Siggins, McGuiness, and Horner entered judgment of Case No. A114179 on
Sept. 28, 2007.
Thorpe is a defendant in numerous asbestos-related personal injury and
wrongful death cases. In fall 2005, 44 plaintiffs moved to enforce the terms
of settlement agreements they asserted were reached with Thorpe.
According to the plaintiffs, the agreements were memorialized in Thorpe's
letters of May 9, 2005, May 23, 2005, and May 29, 2005, signed by its
president, Robert Fults, and each of the plaintiffs signed compromise and
release agreements stipulating to the terms of his or her respective settlement.
The Fults letters were provided to the San Francisco County Superior Court as
exhibits to the enforcement motion, as was a chart setting forth the basic
facts of each individual settlement and at least one plaintiff's compromise
and release agreement.
Thorpe denied that it had agreed to the settlements. Thorpe argued that the
letters did not constitute settlement agreement; that Thorpe never executed
the plaintiffs' compromise and release agreements; that those agreements
varied materially from the Fults letters in that they did not condition
settlement on the availability of insurance funds and contained numerous
additional terms, such as an allocation formula, attorney fees provisions, and
dispute resolution provisions; and that Thorpe never agreed to payment of the
settlement amounts at any specific time.
The trial court concluded that Thorpe had entered into an enforceable
settlement agreement with each plaintiff.
Judgment was entered directing that plaintiffs "shall have judgment for the
unpaid settlement amounts ... to be paid from any available insurance proceeds."
Thorpe filed a timely appeal and elected to proceed.
Thorpe Insulation Co. appealed from a judgment to enforce settlement
agreements in 44 personal injury actions filed against it due to asbestos
exposure. The Appeals Court affirmed.
Upon review, the Appeals Court found that:
(1) That counsel in fact provided only two of the three missing letters; and
(2) In any event, nothing in the letters that were provided changes the
Appeals Court's analysis.
The request for judicial notice is denied. The Appeals Court found no error.
Douglas G. Wah, Bishop, Barry, Howe et al., Emeryville, Calif., Jeffrey Scott
Wood, Oakland, Calif., represented Thorpe Insulation Co.
Walter Nalezyty of Michigan, on Oct. 2, 2007, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 51 defendants in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., alleging
he was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers from his father's clothing, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.
Mr. Nalezyty claims his father was employed at Chrysler as a metal finisher
and bump out installer. He claims his father would carry the asbestos dust on
his clothing home with him where it would again become airborne.
Mr. Nalezyty was employed from 1964 through 1991 as a pattern maker and
installer at various locations in Michigan and Illinois. He claims he was
exposed to asbestos during non-occupational work projects including home and
automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling.
The suit claims that Mr. Nalezyty was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Aug. 7,
2007 and subsequently became aware that his illness was wrongfully caused.
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to require and advise their
employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos
fibers home.
As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Nalezyty claims he was exposed to
fibers containing asbestos, and developed a disease caused only by asbestos
which has disabled and disfigured him.
Mr. Nalezyty also claims that he has sought, but has been unable to obtain
full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants
leading him to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos.
Mr. Nalezyty claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to
preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information he has been
prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties.
Represented by Tim Thompson and Jill Angle of SimmonsCooper in East Alton,
Ill., Mr. Nalezyty seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$700,000, plus
punitive damages.
Case No. 07 L 860 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.
Asbestos cleanup of a partially demolished apartment complex in La Marque,
Tex., continued on Oct. 8, 2007, two months after the State learned a
contractor failed to obtain an asbestos survey, The Galveston County Daily
News reports.
With a looming US$10,000-a-day fine, demolition of Crossing was stopped in
August 2007 until an asbestos survey could be completed.
A Missouri City, Tex., environmental firm notified the new owner, GC Wealth
Investment Group, on Aug. 16, 2007 that asbestos was found in seven of the
remaining 13 buildings, according to the survey provided by city officials.
No asbestos, however, was found in debris fields, which workers have been
removing for more than a week.
Todd Wingler, a regulatory environmental engineer with the Texas Department of
State Health Services, said a state inspector sampled the debris field and
found it contained no asbestos.
Mr. Wingler said no determination has been made on whether the state would
impose fines for the demolition, which La Marque officials said was permitted
to Richard Ennis of E&E Enterprises.
Terry Key, a building official with the city, said asbestos was found in
sheetrock and flooring material.
Fire Chief Todd Zacherl said the city condemned the buildings in 2006 and
found them to be structurally unsound.
A state-approved asbestos-removal contractor can demolish the remaining
buildings without entering the structures to remove the cancer-causing
material first.
A 2004 study by the Environmental Working Group cited nearly 10,000 deaths
nationwide attributed to asbestos by the National Centers for Health
Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control.
Some experts are calling on Canada to stop mining and exporting asbestos, four
decades since Canadians first became aware of the danger posed by the
substance, CBC News reports.
Jim Brophy, director of the Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers,
said the clinic receives calls almost every day from workers about some type
of asbestos-related health problem.
Vermiculite, long used for insulation in Canadian homes, was just one of the
many common products developed from asbestos.
Mr. Brophy added that the frequency of calls to the clinic is higher this year
than in each of the last three years. He said the number of worker deaths from
asbestos exposure is expected to peak in the next decade.
The OHCOW fears mesothelioma will soar in coming years. Yet in Canada, there
is no one keeping track, Mr. Brophy said.
Mr. Brophy said almost all international health agencies, including the UN's
International Agency for the Research of Cancer, the World Health
Organization, the International Labor Organization and the Canadian Cancer
Society, have called for asbestos to be banned.
Canada, which first began mining asbestos in 1879, continues to mine the
mineral in Quebec and exports it to many developing countries where it is used
mainly to strengthen cement.
Canada, which is one of the world's leading producers of asbestos, is among
the few developed countries that has not banned the material.
The Government's defense of chrysotile has two planks: that recent science
proves this type of asbestos is much safer than others; and that properly
handled, Canadian asbestos is safe to use.
Ottawa and Quebec City spend millions on trade promotion through the
Montreal-based Chrysotile Institute, run by the non-profit organization's
president, Clement Godbout.
Barry Castleman, an American occupational health scientist who advises many of
the global bodies which now ban all use of any asbestos, calls Canada's
concept of "safe use" a delusion.
Retired electrician Bob Blakey, who worked around asbestos for 40 years in
Sarnia, Ontario, wants to see the government ban asbestos use and production.
Mr. Blakey said, "Every other country is trying to ban it. European countries
have got bans on it and Canada is out there pushing this product like a dope
dealer. I think it's criminal."
The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking a wider investigation into the
billing practices of L. Tersigni Consulting PC, a firm that advised
asbestos-injury claimants in several big bankruptcy cases, Associated Press
The U.S. Trustee's Office, an arm of the department, has already asked the
courts overseeing the Chapter 11 cases of Congoleum Corp., Federal-Mogul
Global Inc., W.R. Grace & Co. and G-I Holdings Inc. to appoint examiners to
investigate allegations that the consulting firm over billed its clients in
those proceedings.
In new court papers, the trustee's office said L. Tersigni Consulting could
also have over billed clients in other cases. The office said it would seek
similar investigations "in all asbestos cases in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and
Delaware, in which LTC was employed as a financial adviser."
The consulting firm's clients were the official committees representing
asbestos claimants in major bankruptcy cases.
Since April 2006, the U.S. Trustee's Office and federal prosecutors have
looked into allegations that the firm's sole owner and principal, Loreto
Tersigni, submitted bills for services that were not performed. Mr. Tersigni
died in May 2007.
The trustee's office is still waiting to hear whether the courts overseeing
the bankruptcy cases of Congoleum, Federal-Mogul, W.R. Grace and G-I Holdings
will appoint examiners.
At a hearing in September 2007, Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., pointed out that the federal government
had been conducting a probe into L. Tersigni Consulting's billing practices
for more than a year.
Judge Fitzgerald also said money could be saved by appointing one examiner to
look at the books and records for all of the bankruptcy cases in which the
firm is suspected of over billing.
At the hearing, Judge Fitzgerald also criticized the trustee's office for
requesting an examiner only in recent months when it knew for more than a year
that there could have been a billing problem involving L. Tersigni Consulting.
Contractors discovered higher-than-normal levels of asbestos fibers at Lees
Brook Community Sports College in Derby, England, U.K., Evening Telegraph reports.
Pupils were told not to attend classes after the asbestos was found, following
maintenance work at the weekend.
It is believed the contractors, who were sealing asbestos panels at the back
of cupboards at the school, disturbed some of the material, which was detected
during air tests.
Head teacher Carol Dibbs decided to keep the school closed to its 1,130 pupils
on Oct. 8, 2007 as a precaution until the extent of the contamination could be
Mrs. Dibbs said, "I understand that the city council has been carrying out
work in buildings such as ours - Hills buildings - after a school in Wales had
problems with breaches in asbestos roof panels.
"As a precaution, it was recommended that the panels at the back of cupboards
in schools were sealed and this is what was happening at the weekend."
The reopening of the Crystal Palace Park farm in London has been delayed after
asbestos was found in the old buildings, Guardian reports.
The London Development Agency told residents the farm would reopen at the
start of October.
On Oct. 2, 2007, Capel Manor College, which is due to run the farm, released a
statement announcing asbestos was found in the dilapidated farm buildings and
outhouses by LDA staff. The announcement came weeks after the deadly substance
was found in the National Sports Centre.
The farm is due to have a trial opening at the end of October after a
GBP600,000 revamp, funded by the college and the LDA, but the public will not
be admitted until a later unspecified date.
The statement said the final opening date will depend on whether further
problems are encountered and how quickly the animals settle into their new homes.
The farm closed in 2000 and has been the target of vandals and arsonists ever
since. When it is re-opened Capel Manor, a training college specializing in
animal acre and horticultural studies, will manage the farm and fill it with a
variety of animals, from pigs, goats and rabbits to snakes, lizards and alpacas.
The International Transport Workers Federation says the owners of Sea Sparkle,
a Panamanian-registered bulk carrier, docked in north Queensland, Australia,
have agreed to allow experts on board to conduct an asbestos audit, ABC News
Dock workers in Townsville, Queensland, first discovered asbestos on the Sea
Sparkle while unloading cargo on Sept. 27, 2007, and more was discovered on
Federation spokesman Dean Summers says workers were too afraid to continue
working with the ship until it could be given a clean bill of health.
Mr. Summers said, "There has been a major breakthrough we have finally got
commitment from the company to agree to initiate a full audit of the ship from
stem to stern to show it is safe to work.
"Further to that, I will have people from a private asbestos contracting firm
on board going right through the ship to find out where the asbestos is."
Asbestos has been found in the pipe ducting insulation of sheltered homes at
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England, The Lowestoft Journal reports.
Environmental health officers halted refurbishment work on the toilets at
Hildesley Court on Stradbroke Road when an anonymous tip-off alerted them to
the presence of asbestos.
They said contractors working on behalf of building managers Housing 21 had
disturbed the dangerous substance, creating airborne fibers which can cause
cancer and lung diseases if inhaled.
The bathrooms of 18 flats were immediately sealed, leaving pensioners to face
a difficult journey to the toilets at the far end of the ground floor.
Hildesley Court resident Alec Cooper, 92, said he was concerned about the
hazardous dust, but more affected by the difficulty of not having a toilet in
his first-floor flat.
A Housing 21 spokesman said a short-term solution to seal any exposed asbestos
would be completed on Oct. 4, 2007 and longer-term work to remove the material
would begin "in the next few days."
Britain banned the import and use of most asbestos products in 1999.
A Waveney District Council spokesman said: "A prohibition notice was issued
because, in the opinion of the environmental health officer, the refurbishment
work was disturbing asbestos and would present an imminent risk to health."
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, an organization dedicated to
serving as the voice of asbestos victims, on Oct. 4, 2007, praised the passage
of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)'s Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007 by the
U.S. Senate, according to an ADAO press release dated Oct. 4, 2007.
The Ban Asbestos in America Act is an effort to ban all production and use of
asbestos in America, launch public education campaigns to raise awareness
about its dangers and expand research and treatment of diseases caused by
"Senator Patty Murray is a hero for all asbestos victims and their families,
and a future protector of generations to come, helping to ensure a safer
environment for us all," said Linda Reinstein, Executive Director and
Cofounder ADAO.
The occurrence of asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma, lung
cancer and asbestosis, is growing out of control.
Studies estimate that during the next decade, 100,000 victims in the United
States will die of an asbestos related disease, equaling 30 deaths per day.
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization was founded by asbestos victims and
their families in 2004. ADAO seeks to give asbestos victims a united voice to
help ensure that their rights are fairly represented and protected, and raise
public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure and the often deadly
asbestos related diseases.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, granted the petition filed by the U.S.
Secretary of Labor, in an asbestos-related action involving Trinity Industries
Circuit Judges Barry, Chagares, and Tashima entered judgment of Case Nos.
06-2121, 06-2271 on Aug. 31, 2007. Senior Circuit Judge Tashima dissented.
In 1988, Trinity purchased a foundry, which had been constructed prior to
1981, in McKees Rocks, Pa. At that time, Trinity had work done on the pusher
furnace, which required removing a brick wall and inner insulation blanket.
Trinity said that any asbestos that had been present was removed. Trinity also
believed that any new insulation installed at that time would be asbestos-free.
Given these beliefs, in 2005, Trinity, in preparing to have work done on the
same pusher furnace, did not conduct tests to determine if asbestos was
present. Trinity hired a contractor, Pli-Brico, to complete the work on the
furnace.
After work commenced, a Trinity employee noticed that an insulation blanket
which had been placed in a dumpster appeared to contain asbestos.
Work stopped and testing revealed that the insulation contained five percent
amosite asbestos, which was later confirmed by tests conducted by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
OSHA issued a citation to Trinity alleging failure to "determine the presence,
location, and quantity of asbestos-containing material and/or presumed
asbestos-containing material at the work site," and failure to "notify
prospective employers bidding for work whose employees reasonably can be
expected to be exposed to areas containing asbestos containing material (ACM)
or presumed asbestos containing material (PACM)."
The OSHA characterized these violations as "serious."
The ALJ found that the cited asbestos standard, which applies to
"[c]onstruction, alteration, repair, maintenance, or renovation of structures,
substrates, or portions thereof, that contain asbestos," applied in this
situation.
The ALJ ruled that Trinity violated both sections of the regulation for which
it was cited. The ALJ vacated the proposed US$2,000 penalty. Both parties
appealed.
The Appeals Court held that:
(1) Owner's violation of regulation requiring building owners to test for
asbestos at worksite was a serious violation, and
(2) Regulation requiring building owners to test for asbestos did not
impermissibly shift burden of proof regarding knowledge.
The Appeals Court granted the petition in 06-2121 and denied the petition in
06-2271. The Appeals Court remanded the case for further proceedings.
Michelle Yau (Argued), Michael P. Doyle, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of
the Solicitor, Washington, D.C., represented the Secretary of Labor.
Robert E. Rader, Jr. (Argued), Rader & Campbell, Dallas, represented
Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission.
RPM International Inc. recorded a total of 10,957 active asbestos-related
cases filed against its subsidiaries as of Aug. 31, 2007, compared with a
total of 10,934 cases as of Aug. 31, 2006, according to the Company's
The Company recorded 10,824 active asbestos cases filed against its
subsidiaries as of May 31, 2007, compared with 10,580 cases as of May 31,
2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2007)
Certain of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, principally Bondex
International Inc. (collectively referred to as the subsidiaries), are
defendants in various asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various
state courts with most current claims pending in five states: Illinois, Ohio,
Mississippi, Texas and Florida.
These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases
based on alleged exposures to asbestos-containing products previously
manufactured by the subsidiaries or others.
For the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2007, the subsidiaries secured dismissals and
settlements of 365 claims and made total payments of US$22.8 million, which
included defense costs paid during the current quarter of US$8.8 million.
For the comparable period ended Aug. 31, 2006, dismissals and settlements
covered 232 claims and total payments were US$16.4 million, which included
defense costs paid during the quarter of US$6.6 million.
During the quarter, the Company resolved a higher number of claims versus the
prior period which accounted for the increase in year-over-year settlement
costs. The Company also had higher year-over-year defense costs as a result of
implementing various changes to the structure of its defense counsel and in
its claims intake and database management facility. The Company estimates that
it spent about US$3 million more than its normal level of defense-related
expenditures due to these added transitional expenses.
The average costs to resolve a claim, including dismissed claims, were
US$38,356 for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2007 and US$42,241 for the quarter
ended Aug. 31, 2006.
At the end of fiscal 2006, the Company recorded a liability for asbestos
claims in the amount of US$335 million, while paying out US$12.9 million for
dismissals and settlements resulting in the Company's reserve moving from
US$99.2 million at Feb. 28, 2006 to US$421.3 million at May 31, 2006.
As of Aug. 31, 2007, total reserves were about US$331.4 million, of which
US$235.5 million was reserved for unasserted potential future claims and
US$95.9 million was reserved for pending known claims.
Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc. owns subsidiaries that produce
specialty coatings and sealants serving both industrial and consumer markets.
The Company's industrial products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion
control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals. Industrial brands
include Stonhard, Tremco, illbruck, Carboline, Day-Glo, Euco and Dryvit.
Subsidiaries of RPM International Inc. anticipate a ruling on pending motions
in an asbestos-related coverage lawsuit during the 2008 fiscal year, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 9, 2007.
During fiscal 2004, the Company's third-party insurers' claimed exhaustion of
coverage. Certain Company subsidiaries have filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment, breach of contract and bad faith against these third-party insurers,
challenging their assertion that their policies covering asbestos-related
claims have been exhausted.
The coverage litigation involves insurance coverage for claims arising out of
alleged exposure to asbestos containing products made by the previous owner of
the Bondex tradename before March 1, 1966.
On March 1, 1966, Republic Powdered Metals Inc. (as it was known then),
purchased the assets and assumed the liabilities of the previous owner of the
Bondex tradename. That previous owner subsequently dissolved and was never a
subsidiary of Republic Powdered Metals, Bondex International Inc., RPM Inc.,
or the Company.
Because of the earlier assumption of liabilities, however, Bondex has
historically and must continue to respond to lawsuits alleging exposure to
these asbestos containing products.
The Company discovered that the defendant insurance companies in the coverage
litigation had wrongfully used cases alleging exposure to these pre-1966
products to erode their aggregate limits. This conduct, apparently known by
the insurance industry based on discovery conducted to date, was in breach of
the insurers' policy language.
Two of the defendant insurers have filed counterclaims seeking to recoup
certain monies should the plaintiffs prevail on their claims. The parties have
substantially completed all fact and expert discovery relating to the
liability phase of the case. The parties have filed dispositive motions
(including motions for summary judgment) and related briefs.
During last year's second fiscal quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, Bondex reached a
cash settlement of US$15 million, the terms of which are confidential by
agreement of the parties, with one of the defendant insurers. The settling
defendant has been dismissed from the case. The subsidiaries are aggressively
pursuing their claims against the remaining insurers based on the terms of
their respective policies.
The Company provides, through its wholly-owned insurance subsidiaries, certain
insurance coverage, primarily product liability, to its other subsidiaries.
Excess coverage is provided by third party insurers. The Company's reserves
provide for these potential losses as well as other uninsured claims.
As of Aug. 31, 2007, the current portion of these reserves amounted to US$53.9
million as compared with US$55.1 million at May 31, 2007, and US$50 million at
Aug. 31, 2006; while the total long-term reserves of US$8.4 million at Aug.
31, 2007 compare with US$8.8 million at May 31, 2007 and US$13.2 million at
Aug. 31, 2006.
Armstrong World Industries Inc., on Oct. 8, 2007, reported it has received the
majority of about US$180 million in refunds for federal income taxes paid over
the preceding 10 years, according to a Company press release, on Form 8-K,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 9, 2007.
The refunds result from the carry back of a portion of tax net operating
losses created by funding of the Asbestos Trust under AWI's Plan of
Reorganization in October 2006.
These refunds are in addition to about US$50 million of 2006 taxes refunded
earlier in 2007.
About US$830 million of tax losses remain available to carry forward from Dec.
31, 2006. While a portion of the losses is subject to limitations, AWI does
not expect any limitations to materially impair their use.
The tax refunds are subject to examination and adjustment by the Internal
Revenue Service under its normal audit procedures.
In accordance with GAAP, AWI has reserved US$145 million on the balance sheet
pending completion of the IRS audit. Any tax losses disallowed for a 10-year
carry back would be available to carry forward, and provide about equal value.
AWI is evaluating how the cash proceeds will be used.
Lancaster, Pa.-based Armstrong World Industries Inc. designs and manufactures
floors, ceilings and cabinets. In 2006, the Company's consolidated net sales
totaled about US$3.4 billion. The Company operates 39 plants in 10 countries
and has about 13,000 employees worldwide.
The family of former Navy veteran and refinery worker, Merlin Durousseau,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit on his behalf against the A.O. Smith Corp.
and 52 other companies with the Jefferson County District Court on Oct. 3,
2007, The Southeast Texas Record reports.
Mr. Durousseau, of Louisiana, died of renal failure in December 2006. At the
request of Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins, the Texas Occupational
Medicine Institute (TOMI) reviewed Mr. Durousseau's medical record and
concluded he died of asbestos induced mesothelioma.
The suit claims that defendants knowingly and maliciously manufactured and
distributed asbestos-containing products.
Although Mr. Durousseau spent most of his working life in Louisiana, the suit
says Jefferson County has jurisdiction because "decedent resided in Texas at
the time of the cause of action."
According to TOMI documents attached to the suit, Mr. Durousseau, a former
smoker, worked as a laborer at the Citgo refinery in Louisiana for 25 years.
He also worked in construction for two years and served in the Navy for six years.
TOMI physician Dr. Steven Haber wrote, "In my opinion, Mr. Durousseau
developed and died from malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Based upon his
years in the Navy and his work at a refinery, he would likely be at risk for
asbestos exposure. Depending upon his work in construction he may have also
had asbestos exposures there as well."
The plaintiffs' original petition says the 50 plus defendants entangled in Mr.
Dorousseau's lawsuit were negligent for failing to adequately test their
asbestos-laced products before flooding the market with dangerous goods and
warn the consumer of the dangers of asbestos exposure.
Some of the defendants listed in the suit include aerospace giant Lockheed
Martin Corp., Viacom Inc. and iron supplier Zurn Industries Inc.
In addition, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp. (3M
Corp.) and American Optical Corp. for producing defective masks that failed to
"provide respiratory protection."
The plaintiffs are suing for wrongful death and exemplary damages, plus
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.
Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, has been assigned to Case No.
E180-461.
The U.S. Senate, on Oct. 4, 2007, unanimously approved S. 742, which is the
Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007, Occupational Health and Safety reports.
Senators speaking before the vote warmly congratulated Sen. Patty Murray,
D-Wash., for more than six years of dogged work on the issue.
She started, Sen. Murray recalled, with a promise to two men dying of
mesothelioma: Fred Biekkola and Brian Harvey.
Sen. Murray said, "I told them I would stand with them every step of the way
until this bill was passed, sent to the president, and signed into law. I lost
both Brian and Fred, because they died of mesothelioma. But I have met many
others along the way, too. . . . Because of the Freds and the Brians and the
many other people I have met, and my great colleagues on the floor of the
Senate, today we are making a difference. We are well on our way to banning
the use of asbestos."
S. 742 would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act; establish a national
mesothelioma registry within one year that is set up by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, The National Institute for Occupational Health
and Safety, and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; and start a
public information campaign about the hazards of asbestos-containing
materials. Forty countries worldwide have similar bans in place.
Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., was a key ally for Sen. Murray. He said, "The EPA
initially proposed a ban of most asbestos-containing materials in the late
1970s. The rule was not finalized until 1989. Only two years later, however,
the Fifth Circuit struck down the rule, finding that the EPA had 'failed to
muster substantial evidence' in support of the ban. Today, the U.S. consumes
about 2,000 tons of asbestos yearly, down from almost 800,000 tons consumed in
the mid-1970s.
"Our bill will establish a permanent ban of asbestos that will be enforced by
the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill also mandates the most thorough
Government study of asbestos to date. The study will ensure the best experts
from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the National
Academy of Sciences, and the EPA examine all aspects of asbestos, including
its natural properties, its geographic distribution across the United States,
and its effects on the human body."
David Parker, a former seaman whose wife died as a result of washing his
asbestos covered work overalls, has won an out of court settlement of
GBP62,500 from British Rail, Swindon Advertiser reports.
Mr. Parker took home asbestos fibers on his clothing, which his wife, Sylvia,
subsequently washed.
The 66-year-old Mr. Parker was employed by British Rail Ferries on the SS
Sarnia ship in 1966, working for two months as a greaser in the boiler rooms
and engine room. During his time on the ship, he was asked to repair the pipes
and remove the asbestos lagging. He was given no protective clothing to wear.
Three years ago following his wife's death, Mr. Parker issued an appeal for
former shipmates to come forward and provide evidence in his case against
British Rail.
Three seamen from Weymouth, who did not work on the same ship as David but
were aware of the dangers of asbestos, were prepared to testify on his behalf
had the matter gone to court.
Mr. Parker's wife was 68 when she died at home in September 2003 from
mesothelioma.
Mr. Parker's case against British Rail was scheduled to be heard in Swindon
County Court but his solicitor, Brigitte Chandler of Swindon practice Charles
Lucas and Marshall and a specialist in industrial disease claims, announced
that British Rail agreed to settle out of court while continuing to deny
The Asbestos Coalition has been set up to lobby for better treatment for
asbestos sufferers, ABC News reports.
The Asbestos Coalition includes victims, legal firms, medical practitioners,
unions and government department representatives.
Spokesman Mark Styan says the group aims to raise awareness of the continuing
dangers of asbestos. It will also campaign for the drug used by mesothelioma
sufferers to be placed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Mr. Styan said, "Certainly the most pressing issue is the drug Alimta which is
currently not on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and that certainly aids
mesothelioma sufferers in their battle with the disease."
James Conlan, a lawyer for Federal-Mogul Corp., on Oct. 10, 2007, said the
Company reached a deal with PepsiAmericas Inc. that removes a major obstacle
to its effort to get out of bankruptcy in 2007, Associated Press reports.
Mr. Conlan said, "Pepsi is withdrawing its objection to the plan."
Federal-Mogul wants to end its stay in bankruptcy by midnight Dec. 31, 2007 to
preserve favorable pricing on US$3.5 billion worth of exit financing.
PepsiAmericas was the only party still objecting to the "B" version of
Federal-Mogul's Chapter 11 plan, which the bottler said left it exposed to
more than its fair share of asbestos-damage claims.
Objections remain to other parts of the plan. However, Mr. Conlan told the
judge overseeing the case that settlements are in hand or pending that could
end opposition to Federal-Mogul's Chapter 11 reorganization plan.
The objection from PepsiAmericas surfaced late in Federal-Mogul's case, and
stems from a brake business owned by a predecessor. Federal-Mogul later owned
the same brake business, and PepsiAmericas said Federal-Mogul's Chapter 11
plan encroached on its insurance-coverage rights.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald presided over confirmation hearings
early in 2007, and said she is likely to recommend that the "B" version of
Federal-Mogul's Chapter 11 plan be confirmed.
However, because of the nature of the liabilities that drove Federal-Mogul
into bankruptcy in the first place -- claims for asbestos damages from people
harmed by the toxic substance -- a federal district judge must also sign off
on the Chapter 11 plan before it can be put in place.
Judge Fitzgerald urged Federal-Mogul to make deals with plan opponents to make
sure that, by the time its Chapter 11 plan is presented to a district judge,
no objections remain.
Mr. Conlan said one of the critical deals on the way is with insurers led by
Travelers Cos. Inc. The insurers are quarreling over Federal-Mogul's proposal
for dealing with asbestos damages related to two units, Vellumoid and Fel Pro.
The deal with Travelers is "tentative," Mr. Conlan said, and other insurance
companies also must approve before it becomes a final settlement.
Once out of bankruptcy, Federal-Mogul is expected to become largely the
property of financier Carl Icahn, who already owns a substantial piece of the
Company's debt.
Steven Edney, a pensioner who contracted asbestos-related cancer has launched
a legal battle for compensation of up to GBP200,000, Leicester Mercury reports.
Mr. Edney was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in March 2007. The
65-year-old has had chemotherapy, but said the cancer was terminal.
Mr. Edney is now claiming damages from his former employer, Lemsew Ltd.,
formerly Alstom Automation Ltd., of Whetstone.
According to a writ that will be heard in the High Court, Mr. Edney, who lives
in Kirby Muxloe, claims he developed mesothelioma after being exposed to
asbestos at the firm, before the dangers were known.
In the action, Mr. Edney accused the company of negligence and breach of
statutory duty.
Asbestos has been found in the grounds of Old Hall School in Walsall, England,
U.K., leading to pupils being banned from parts of the site,
expressandstar.com reports.
Work to create a GBP20,000 sensory garden for students at the school has now
been halted while bosses join forces with council chiefs to get the material
Pupils at the special school have been banned from going anywhere near the
substance and workmen creating the new garden have been ordered to put down
their tools until it is cleared.
Workmen discovered the asbestos, used widely in the 1970s because of its
resistance to heat, electricity and chemical damage, and raised the alarm.
Work started on the garden during the summer holiday and it was hoped it would
be finished in time for the start of autumn term. Work will resume as soon as
the asbestos is removed.
Children's services chief councilor Zahid Ali said, "We are aware that
asbestos cement debris has been found in the soil within the grounds of Old
Hall Special School. We have been given expert guidance that it is a very low
level risk and officers from Walsall Council are assisting the school in the
clean up."
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Department, New York, dismissed the
appeals filed by ECR International Corp., formerly known was Dunkirk Radiator
Corp., and Weil-McLain, a division of The Marley Co., in an asbestos related
action filed by Patricia Dole for her husband Ernest Dole.
Judges Gorski, Smith, Centra, Fahey, and Pine entered decision of the case on
This was an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County entered
The order denied the motions of ECR International and Weil-McLain for summary
judgment dismissing the amended complaint against them.
Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance of action signed by the attorneys
for Weil-McLain and Mrs. Dole on April 23, 2007, and upon reading and filing
the stipulation withdrawing appeal signed by the attorneys for ECR
International and Mrs. Dole on June 4, 2007, the Supreme Court ordered that
the appeals be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs
upon stipulations.
Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull P.C., New York City (Steven H. Kaplan of Counsel),
represented ECR International Corp., formerly known as Dunkirk Radiator Corp.
Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., Buffalo, N.Y., (V. Christopher Potenza of Counsel),
represented Weil-McLain, A Division of the Marley Co.
Weitz & Luxenberg, New York City (James Thompson and Stephen J. Riegel of
Counsel), represented Patricia Dole, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of Ernest Dole.
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a class action against BigBand Networks, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, on behalf of investors who purchased
BigBand common stock on its Initial Public Offering on March 14, 2007, or on
the open market from March 14, 2007 through September 27, 2007.
The Complaint is the first filed against BigBand that alleges claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks to recover for investors amounts in
excess of the $13 IPO price.
The Complaint charges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the IPO contained false and misleading statements. The
Complaint further charges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Shares of BigBand stock fell 30% on September 28, 2007, after BigBand revealed
that it was not performing in alignment with previously publicized
representations of then existing facts.
Among other things, defendants belatedly acknowledged that BigBand's largest
customer had reduced orders of BigBand's products until it worked off excess
inventory of those products, and other customers were having difficulty
customizing BigBand's products. The true facts disclosed by defendants at the
end of the Class Period were in sharp contrast to defendants' public
statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus regarding the
then-existing state of BigBand's business.
Interested parties may move the court no later than December 3, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
Robert Finkel, Esq.
Wolf Popper LLP
Tel.: 212.759.4600 or 877.370.7703 (toll free)
Fax: 212.486.2093 or 877.370.7704 (toll free)
E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking class-action
status in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
American Depository Shares of LDK Solar Co., Ltd. between August 1, 2007 and
October 3, 2007, inclusive.
The Complaint charges that LDK, a manufacturer of multicrystalline solar
wafers, and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities
laws. The Complaint alleges that, prior to and during the Class Period,
Defendants issued false statements describing LDK's business fundamentals,
financial results and earnings growth potential.
Specifically, Defendants concealed that LDK's internal controls were flawed,
preventing it from accurately measuring or reporting its inventory. As a
result, the Company's inventories were materially overstated, causing
inflation in LDK's assets, earnings and earnings per share ("EPS") reported
during the Class Period.
On October 3, 2007, it was reported that LDK's Financial Controller, Charley
Situ, had resigned stating that LDK lacked internal controls and that the
Company's reported inventory of polysilicon was overstated by 25%. Then on
October 4, 2007, LDK disclosed that it would have an independent outside
auditor investigate Situ's allegations. In response to this news, the
Company's ADS, which traded as high as $76.75 on September 27, 2007, plummeted
to as low as $44.98, and closed at $48.30 on October 4, 2007.
Interested parties may move the court no later than December 10, 2007 for lead
Wayne T. Boulton
Nancy A. Kulesa
Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C.
E-mail: firm@snilaw.com
Website: http://www.snilaw.com
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. announces that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of NutriSystem, Inc.
(Nasdaq:NTRI) between February 14, 2007 and October 4, 2007, inclusive seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint charges NutriSystem and certain of its officers with violations
of the Federal Securities Laws. NutriSystem provides healthy diets plans for
men and women.
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following:
(a) that the Company was signing up fewer new customers and
was not performing according to internal expectations;
(b) that the Company's costs of acquiring new customers
were significantly increasing; and
(c) that the company's performance was being negatively
impacted by competition.
Then, on October 3, 2007, after the market closed, the company issued a press
release announcing its preliminary third quarter 2007 results and revised
earnings guidance for the full year of 2007. In response to this announcement,
the price of NutriSystem common stock fell $15.98 per share, or approximately
34%, to close at $32.59 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.
Additionally, during the class period, the individual defendants and other
company insiders sold 305,179 shares of their personally held NutriSystem
common stock for gross proceeds in excess of $19.5 million.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the
common stock of NutriSystem between February 14, 2007 and October 4, 2007.
Susan R. Gross, Esq.
Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600
E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
debbie@bernardmgross.com
Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors.
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.