In another unpublished opinion, handed down just two days ago, the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Five) held 2-1 that Prop. 64 applies to pending cases. AICCO, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America, no. A110367. Justice Reardon, who was on the panel in Mervyn's, dissented. The dissent is noteworthy for its discussion of Myers v. Philip Morris Cos., 28 Cal.4th 828 (2002), a case that various courts addressing Prop. 64 retroactivity have interpreted in widely divergent ways. It will be quite interesting to see how the Supreme Court views it.