/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080815.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 15, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 162
Headlines
AFFINION GROUP: Limited Discovery Occurs in Wash. Consumer Suit
AFFINION: Court Mulls Arbitration Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Settles Consumer Suits in California & Illinois
AMERICA SERVICE: Wants Tennessee Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
FIRESIDE BANK: Still Faces Suits Over Post-Repossession Notices
HSBC FINANCE: March 30, 2009 Trial Set for "Jaffe" Case in Ill.
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Wisconsin Suit Over Defective Land Rover LR3s
JEFFERSON COUNTY: Homeless Sex Offenders Sue Sheriff's Office
LEAR CORP: Mich. Court Considers Discovery Request in ERISA Suit
LEAR CORP: Awaits Court's Dismissal of Dela. Stockholders' Suit
MOBILE MESSENGER: Florida "Mobile Content" Charges Suit Settled
PFF BANCORP: Faces California Lawsuit Over Imprudent Investment
PRISON HEALTH: Pa. Court Yet to Certify Physician's Lawsuit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dismissed From Md. Mutual Funds Lawsuits
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Md. Court Considers Motions in "Saunders"
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces Consolidated Brokers' Lawsuit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Certifies Class in "Bouder"
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Overtime & Benefits Suit in Calif.
RAMBUS INC: Court Yet to Rule on Antitrust Suit Dismissal Bid
SMITH BARNEY: $33MM Deal in Calif. Sex Bias Suit Gets Final Nod
SMITHKLINEBECHAM: Faces Pennsylvania Suit Over 'Flonase' Drug
SUNRISE PROPANE: Juroviesky & Ricci Files Ontario Nuisance Suit
TELMEX USA: Faces N.J. Suit Over Prepaid Phone Calling Cards
TIME WARNER: Faces Kansas Antitrust Lawsuit Over Monopoly Abuse
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Court Okays $50MM Securities Suit Deal
UNITEHERE PENSION: Breached Fiduciary Duties in California Suit
UNITRIN: Still Faces Louisiana & Texas Hurricane-Related Suits
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: $10MM Securities Suit Settlement Approved
WEST MARINE: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Labor Violations
New Securities Fraud Cases
CARMAX INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Virgina Securities Lawsuit
GT SOLAR: Wolf Popper Files New Hampshire Securities Fraud Suit
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Brower Piven Files Securities in California
REDDY ICE: Sarraf Gentile Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 37T Claims Remain v. BorgWarner at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA's Action Ongoing v. BorgWarner in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $339.3M in Losses & ALAE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelly-Moore Paint Lawsuit Settled in April
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Against PepsiAmericas Ongoing in Minn.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO LLC Cases Ongoing v. SCC Affiliates
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Inc. Subject to Liability Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. 3M Co. Drop to 4,700 at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Company Cites $112M Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Estimates $8M Aearo Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sinnotts Favored in American Optical Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rolla Resignation Over CAA Breach Accepted
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Cites 3,560 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has $22.4M June 30 Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Gets 2,900 Claims in 1st Half
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Parsons Action v. Reynolds Persists
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Skilled Healthcare Reports $5.34M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 105,700 Cases Ongoing v. EnPro at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Has $1.1M Collateral for Appeal Bonds
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites $28.1M Settlement Commitments
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Records $337.5M Coverage at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Records $12.2M Cash Charge at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Liability Totals $502.9Mil at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $338.06M Liability at June 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $3.97M Coverage Case Expenses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 36,620 Claims Pending v. Colfax at June 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Has $366.8M Liability Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $39M Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 37T Claims Pending v. Maremont at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Cites $12M Rockwell Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Facing 500 Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $92.6M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco Faces 9,373 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $413.2Mil A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Continues to Face Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Tyco Intl Drop to 4,700 at June 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Has 25T Claims in Six States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $18.27M June 27 Net Gain
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Ltd. Has $350.7Mil Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 130,740 Claims in U.S.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $23.2M for N.Y. Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Face 344 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Has $672M June 30 Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. Mallinckrodt Inc. Rise to 10,739
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stehman's Case Still Pending v. Ballantyne
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Still Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Penns Win $16M Verdict in Suit v. Kerr Corp
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY School Worker Convicted for AHERA Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hostert Suit Filed v. 79 Companies in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Handyman's Widow Gets GBP118T Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Court Awards Payout to Dobson's Family
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FEMA Says No Cleanup Funds for Chafee, Ark.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LCH Contracts to Appeal GBP70,000 Penalty
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMH Denies Presence of Asbestos in Facility
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MassDEP Imposes $50,412 Penalty on Peltier
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Settlement Reached in California Water Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. CenterPoint
*********
AFFINION GROUP: Limited Discovery Occurs in Wash. Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery has occurred in a purported consumer fraud
class-action suit filed in Washington against Affinion Group,
Inc., which, prior to 2007, was known as the Trilegiant Corp.
On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The
Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant in the Superior
Court of Washington, Spokane County.
The claim asserts violations of various consumer protection
statutes.
The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
denied by the court.
The case is currently pending before the court. There has been
limited discovery and motion practice to date, according to
Affinion Group, Inc's. July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com--
is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.
AFFINION: Court Mulls Arbitration Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County has yet to rule
on a plaintiff's motion appealing its decision to compel
arbitration in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit that
names a unit of Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., as a defendant.
On Nov. 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC (now know as Affinion
Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC), and Allstate
Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County,
alleging, among other things, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and
violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive
practices act.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, but was remanded to the Circuit Court of
Alabama for Greene County.
The company has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008. In granting the
company's motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration
with respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not
class) basis.
On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's order. The court has yet to rule on the
plaintiff's motion, according to Affinion Group, Inc's. July 31,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com/
-- is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.
AFFINION GROUP: Settles Consumer Suits in California & Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., which, prior to 2007, was known as the
Trilegiant Corp., reached a settlement in two purported class-
action suits filed in California and Illinois, alleging
violations of federal or state consumer protection statutes,
according to Affinion Group, Inc's. July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.
August 2005 Litigation
On Aug. 9, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against
Trilegiant Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
The claim asserts violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act and various California consumer protection statutes. The
suit seeks unspecified actual damages, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.
November 2001 Litigation
On Nov. 15, 2001, a class action complaint was filed in Madison
County, Illinois, against Trilegiant alleging violations of
state consumer protection statutes in connection with the sale
of certain membership products.
Motions to dismiss were denied and a class was certified by the
court.
On Feb. 14, 2008, the parties entered into a definitive
settlement agreement that resolves this lawsuit and the August
2005 Suit on a class-wide basis.
On Feb. 15, 2008, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. A final fairness hearing was held on
July 18, 2008 at which the court issued a final order approving
the settlement.
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com/
-- is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.
AMERICA SERVICE: Wants Tennessee Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has
to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of an amended
consolidated securities fraud suit filed against America Service
Group Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.
On April 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed the first of four similar
securities class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee against the company and the
company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer.
The plaintiffs' allegations in these complaints are
substantially identical. The suits are brought on behalf of a
putative class of individuals who purchased the company's common
stock between Sept. 24, 2003, and March 16, 2006.
Allegedly, prior to the company's announcement of the audit
committee's investigation, the company and its CEO and CFO
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements, or
concealing information about the company's business, forecasts
and financial performance.
The complaints seek certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief. By order dated Aug. 3, 2006, the district court
consolidated the lawsuits into one action.
On Oct. 31, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding as defendants:
-- Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC;
-- Enoch E. Hartman III; and
-- Grant J. Bryson.
The amended complaint also generally alleges that defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
business, which caused the company's securities to trade at
inflated prices during the class period.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages in the form
of restitution; compensatory damages, including interest; and
reasonable costs and expenses.
The defendants requested the court to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the parties completed the briefs on this motion
in May 2007. This motion is currently pending before the
presiding judge.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "In Re: American Service Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00323," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Judge William J. Haynes,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@csgrr.com)
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
655 W Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
- and -
George Edward Barrett, Esq.
(gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
217 Second Avenue, N.
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: 615-244-2202
Representing the defendant are:
Benjamin Lee, Esq. (blee@kslaw.com)
King & Spalding LLC
1180 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Phone: 404-572-4600
Fax: 404-572-5100
- and -
Marcia Meredith Eason, Esq. (meason@millermartin.com)
Miller & Martin
Volunteer Building, 832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Phone: 423-756-8304
Fax: 423-785-8480
FIRESIDE BANK: Still Faces Suits Over Post-Repossession Notices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fireside Bank -- an operating segment of Unitrin, Inc. --
continues to face two class-action suits in California state
courts over allegations that its post-repossession notices to
defaulting borrowers failed to comply with certain aspects of
California law.
The plaintiffs seek:
-- compensatory damages, including a refund of deficiency
balances collected from customers who received the
allegedly defective notices;
-- punitive damages; and
-- equitable relief.
A statewide class has been certified in one of these matters.
Fireside Bank has successfully moved to have these two cases
treated on a coordinated basis going forward.
Unitrin reported no development in both matters in its Aug. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, is engaged in providing property and casualty
insurance, life and health insurance, and consumer finance
services. The company conducts its operations through six
operating segments: Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty,
Unitrin Direct, Unitrin Business Insurance, Life and Health
Insurance and Consumer Finance. Unitrin's property and casualty
insurance business operations are conducted through Kemper Auto
and Home, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct and Unitrin Business
Insurance.
HSBC FINANCE: March 30, 2009 Trial Set for "Jaffe" Case in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A March 30, 2009 trial date is scheduled for the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
HSBC Finance Corp. and other defendants.
In August 2002, the company restated previously reported
consolidated financial statements. The restatement related to
certain MasterCard and Visa co-branding and affinity credit card
relationships and a third-party marketing agreement, which were
entered into between 1992 and 1999. All were part of the
company's Credit Card Services segment.
In consultation with its prior auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP,
the company treated payments made in connection with these
agreements as prepaid assets and amortized them in accordance
with the underlying economics of the agreements.
Its current auditor, KPMG LLP, advised the company that, in its
view, the payments should have either been charged against
earnings at the time they were made or amortized over a shorter
period of time.
The restatement resulted in a $155.8-million after-tax,
retroactive reduction to retained earnings at Dec. 31, 1998. As
a result of the restatement, and other corporate events,
including, e.g., the 2002 settlement with 50 states and the
District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices,
HSBC Finance Corp., and its directors, certain officers and
former auditors have been involved in various legal proceedings,
some of which purport to be class actions.
A number of the actions allege violations of federal securities
laws were filed between August and October 2002, and seek to
recover damages in respect of allegedly false and misleading
statements about the company's common stock.
The legal actions have been consolidated into a single purported
class action, "Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al.,
No. 02-C-5893 (N.D. Ill., filed Aug. 19, 2002)." A consolidated
and amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2003.
The amended complaint purports to assert claims under the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Oct. 23,
1997, and Oct. 11, 2002, arising out of alleged false and
misleading statements in connection with the company's sales and
lending practices, the 2002 state settlement agreement, the
restatement and the HSBC merger.
On Dec. 3, 2004, the court signed the parties' stipulation to
certify a class with respect to the claims brought under Section
10 and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The parties stipulated that the plaintiffs will not seek to
certify a class with respect to the claims brought under Section
11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in this action
or otherwise.
The amended complaint, which also names as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., did not specify the amount of damages
sought.
In May 2003, the company, and other defendants, filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint. On March 19, 2004, the court granted
in part, and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.
The court dismissed all claims against Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Goldman Sachs & Co. The court also
dismissed certain claims alleging strict liability for alleged
misrepresentation of material facts based on statute of
limitations grounds.
The claims that remain against some or all of the defendants
essentially allege the defendants knowingly made a false
statement of a material fact in conjunction with the purchase or
sale of securities, that the plaintiffs justifiably relied on
the statement, the false statement caused the plaintiffs
damages, and that some or all of the defendants should be liable
for those alleged statements.
On Feb. 28, 2006, the Court also dismissed all alleged Section
10 claims that arose prior to July 30, 1999, shortening the
class period by 22 months. Discovery has concluded.
Separately, one of the defendants, Arthur Andersen LLP, entered
into a settlement of the claims against Arthur Andersen. This
settlement received Court approval in April, 2006.
The remaining defendants' summary judgment motion is pending.
The Court has set a trial date of March 30, 2009, according to
its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Jaffe v. Household Int'l Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-05893," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Ronald A. Guzman,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Gary L. Specks, Esq. (gspecks@kaplanfox.com)
Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-558-1584
- and -
Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. (spenceb@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
Representing the defendants is:
Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. (neimer@eimerstahl.com)
Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP
224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-660-7600
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Wisconsin Suit Over Defective Land Rover LR3s
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Land Rover North America is facing a class-action
complaint before the Milwaukee County Court over allegations it
sells 2005-2006 Land Rover LR3s with factory-equipped Wrangler
tires that are defectively aligned and wear out after only 4,000
miles, CourtHouse News Service reports.
Jaguar Land Rover is a business built around two great British
car brands with exceptional design and engineering capabilities.
Jaguar Land Rover?s manufacturing facilities are in the UK.
JEFFERSON COUNTY: Homeless Sex Offenders Sue Sheriff's Office
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three homeless registered sex offenders filed a class action
lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama against the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, which
refuses to release them after they served their sentences
because they cannot provide a "valid and clearable" address,
CourtHouse News Service reports.
The plaintiffs and other similarly situated indigent individuals
subject to inclusion in Alabama's sex offender registry bring
this suit to stop the practice of incarcerating individuals with
or without charge in the jail or prison system until such time
as they can provide a valid and clearable residence.
The plaintiffs seek to declare this said process and law
unconstitutional. They have been convicted of sexual crimes and
violations of the sex offender registration law for which they
have served sentences but find that they cannot be released from
custody because they allegedly cannot provide jail officials
with an address that will comply with the requirements of
Alabama Code 5 15-20-20 et. seq.
This alleged failure is not willful, but due to indigent status.
Because of their financial circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot
find anywhere to live despite the fact that many of them and
their families have attempted to find a residence that will
comply with the Act's requirements.
Additionally, despite their attempts to return to their original
residences or find alternate residences, the plaintiffs have
found that the residences they are attempting to secure are
within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility. These
laws also have the unintended effect of causing other similarly
situated indigent individuals to live on the streets, under
bridges, in tents or trailers without registering because they
cannot find an approved residence.
The plaintiffs request:
a. that the jury and the Court adjudge and decree that the
defendants have engaged in the violations of laws
alleged;
b. that the plaintiffs recover such actual damages as the
jury or the Court will find the plaintiffs have
sustained, together with such double, treble, punitive,
or exemplary damages as the law shall permit;
c. that the Court enter an injunction which prohibits the
defendants from engaging in the violations of law set
forth and requires them to promulgate rules and
regulations ensuring the minimum due process required
under the United States Constitution and the Alabama
Constitution;
d. that the Court declare the act unconstitutional as it
applies to indigent defendants who cannot afford to
secure housing;
e. that the Court order expedited discovery on the issues
presented by the plaintiffs for injunctive relief due to
the immediate harm being done to the plaintiffs, and
those similarly situated, by the defendants' violations
of law set forth;
f. that the plaintiffs recover the costs of this lawsuit,
including reasonable attorney's fees as provided by 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, 1988, and the common law; and
g. that the plaintiffs have such other and other further
relief as the Court will deem just and appropriate.
The suit is "Sidney Gipson, et al. v. The Jefferson County
Sheriff's Office et al., Case No. CV-08-~0-1421-S," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Kira Fonteneau, Esq.
1933 Richard Arlington Blvd S Suite 223
Birmingham, AL 35209- 1255
Phone: 205-533-9202
Fax: 866-730- 1427
LEAR CORP: Mich. Court Considers Discovery Request in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has
yet to rule on a request that seeks additional time for
discovery in a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
against Lear Corp.
A former Lear employee filed the purported class action
complaint in April 2006 before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan against the company, certain
members of its board of directors, members of its Employee
Benefits Committee, and certain members of its human resources
personnel. The suit alleges violations of the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act with respect to the company's
retirement savings plans for salaried and hourly employees.
In the second quarter of 2006, the company was served with three
additional purported class action ERISA lawsuits, each of which
contained similar allegations against it, the members of its
Board, members of its EBC and certain members of its senior
management and its human resources personnel.
The court subsequently consolidated the four lawsuits as "In re:
Lear Corp. ERISA Litigation." The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint, which alleges breaches of fiduciary
duties substantially similar to those alleged in the four
individually filed lawsuits. The consolidated complaint
continued to name the same defendants, but added certain other
current and former members of the EBC.
The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants in
connection with the administration of Lear's retirement savings
plans for salaried and hourly employees.
The fiduciary duty claims are largely based on allegations of
breaches of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and of
over-concentration of plan assets in the company's common stock.
The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of the
plans and all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the plans from Oct. 21, 2004, to the present and seek to
recover losses allegedly suffered by the plans. The complaints
do not specify the amount of damages sought.
During the fourth quarter of 2006, the defendants asked to have
all defendants and all counts in the consolidated complaint
dismissed. The court denied this dismissal motion during the
second quarter of 2007.
On Aug. 8, 2007, the court ordered that discovery be completed
by April 30, 2008.
During the first quarter of 2008, the parties exchanged written
discovery requests, the defendants filed with the court a motion
to compel the plaintiffs to provide more complete discovery
responses, which was granted in part and denied in part, and the
plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification.
In mid-April 2008, the parties entered into an agreement to stay
all matters pending mediation. The mediation took place on
May 12, 2008, but has not resulted in a settlement to date.
The defendants took the named plaintiffs' depositions in June
2008. Discovery closed on June 23, 2008, and the defendants
filed their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on July 7, 2008.
The plaintiffs have requested additional time for discovery, and
the court has not yet ruled on that request, according to the
company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2008.
The suit is "Malloy v. Lear Corp., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
11735-JCO-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Judge John Corbett O'Meara
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Stephen F. Wasinger, Esq. (sfw@sfwlaw.com)
Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC
32121 Woodward Avenue
300 Balmoral Centre
Royal Oak, MI 48073-0999
Phone: 248-554-6306
Representing the defendant is:
Thomas G. McNeill, Esq. (TMcNeill@dickinsonwright.com)
Dickinson Wright
500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
Detroit, MI 48226-3425
Phone: 313-223-3500
LEAR CORP: Awaits Court's Dismissal of Dela. Stockholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery has yet to rule on a motion that
sought the dismissal of the fourth amended complaint in a
consolidated class-action lawsuit, which sought to block
billionaire investor Carl Icahn's acquisition of Lear Corp.
Previously, the company agreed to a $2.31-billion buyout offer
from the Icahn-controlled American Real Estate Partners LP. The
transaction involves Mr. Icahn paying $36 per share for the Lear
shares he does not already own.
Between Feb. 9 and Feb. 21, 2007, certain stockholders filed
three purported class-action lawsuits before the Delaware Court
of Chancery against the company, certain members of its board of
directors, and American Real Estate Partners and certain of its
affiliates.
These lawsuits were then consolidated into a single action. The
amended complaint in the consolidated suit generally alleged
that the Agreement and Plan of Merger among lear and AREP Car
Holdings Corp. and AREP Car Acquisition Corp. unfairly limited
the process of selling the company and that certain members of
the company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the Merger Agreement and acted with conflicts
of interest in approving the Merger Agreement.
The amended complaint in the consolidated action further alleged
that Lear's preliminary and definitive proxy statements for the
Merger Agreement were misleading and incomplete, and that Lear's
payments to AREP as a result of the termination of the Merger
Agreement constituted unjust enrichment and waste.
On Feb. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.
On March 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed yet another amended
complaint. In June 2007, the Delaware court issued an order
entering a limited injunction of Lear's planned shareholder vote
on the Merger Agreement until the company made supplemental
proxy disclosure. That supplemental proxy disclosure was made
and approved by the Delaware court on June 18, 2007.
Accordingly, the Delaware court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint.
On Sept. 11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint.
On Jan. 30, 2008, the Delaware court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, leaving
only derivative claims against the Lear directors and AREP based
on the payment by Lear to AREP of a termination fee pursuant to
the Merger Agreement. The plaintiffs were also granted leave to
file an interim petition for an award of fees and expenses
related to the supplemental proxy disclosure.
On April 14, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
remaining claims in the fourth amended complaint. A hearing on
both the defendants' dismissal motion and the plaintiffs'
interim fee petition was held on June 3, 2008.
The Delaware court granted the plaintiffs' interim fee petition,
awarding the plaintiffs $800,000 in attorneys' fees and
expenses. However, the Delaware court still intends to issue a
written ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss, according
to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 28, 2008.
Lear Corp. -- http://www.lear.com/-- is a worldwide supplier of
automotive interior systems based on net sales. It supplies
automotive manufacturers with complete automotive seat systems,
electrical distribution systems and various electronic products.
Lear also supplies automotive interior components and systems,
including instrument panels and cockpit systems, headliners and
overhead systems, door panels and flooring and acoustic systems.
MOBILE MESSENGER: Florida "Mobile Content" Charges Suit Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached by Mobile Messenger in class
action litigation involving claims that unauthorized charges for
"mobile content" were placed on the cell phone bills of
consumers throughout the country.
Mobile content refers to products such as ringtones, games,
graphics, news, and other alerts that generally are received via
text messages on mobile phones and are charged directly to
customers' mobile phone bills. Although a relatively new form
of commerce, mobile content has evolved to form a large and
increasingly important industry. Mobile Messenger acts as an
intermediary, between content providers, marketers and mobile
operators, providing clients with advice on consumer protection,
billing and payment, and direct customer support for users
purchasing mobile content through its system.
Filed on July 11, 2008, the lawsuit alleged that there were not
adequate safeguards in place to ensure that customers are only
billed for services they agreed to purchase.
The suit asserts claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and violation of consumer protection laws and seeks
monetary as well as injunctive relief.
The settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of Florida, entitles
wireless customers across the country to receive refunds for
unauthorized mobile content charges.
Under the settlement, Mobile Messenger has agreed to continue to
improve its consumer protection practices, including its refund
policy, and has agreed to permit outside review of such
practices.
In addition, Mobile Messenger has agreed to remain in compliance
with the Mobile Marketing Association?s guidelines regarding
numbers that have been abandoned and "recycled" to new wireless
subscribers.
In addition to the service improvements, all Settlement Class
members are entitled to individual relief under the settlement
provided they are eligible. Mobile Messenger has agreed to
refund the full amount of all eligible Mobile Content charges
associated with Mobile Messenger that were billed on or after
January 1, 2005, to August 13, 2008. Refunds will be provided
to the Settlement Class members as follows:
1. Refunds. Mobile Messenger shall establish a settlement
fund and shall refund to members of the Settlement Class
any approved claims for the period from January 1, 2005,
to August 13, 2008. The amount of the settlement fund is
$12,000,000 unless the Court in the AT&T Settlement
gives final approval of the AT&T Settlement, in which
case the Settlement Fund here will be reduced
$9,000,000. Further, if the approved claims in this
settlement exceed the amount of the settlement fund each
Settlement Class member who filed an approved claim will
receive their share of the settlement fund.
2. Subscription Charge Refunds. With respect to claims
relating to charges associated with Mobile Content sold
by subscription from January 1, 2005, to August 13,
2008, Mobile Messenger shall refund to eligible members
of the Settlement Class an amount not to exceed three
times the monthly subscription charge.
By agreeing to the settlement, Mobile Messenger is not admitting
that it is liable to the Settlement Class, or anyone else, or
that it violated any law or regulation.
This settlement is the first nationwide settlement with a
company of this kind and follows a similar settlement reached
with AT&T Mobility, LLC over similar issues.
"Mobile Messenger has decided to demonstrate leadership in
improving this growing industry," explained Myles McGuire, Esq.,
of KamberEdelson, LLC. "We expect that this settlement will put
a lot of pressure on others to follow Mobile Messenger's lead."
The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida will
hold a fairness hearing on December 1, 2008, at 8:30 a.m., to
consider final approval of the deal.
Deadline to file objections to the settlement is on October 31,
2008. Deadline to file claims is on January 30, 2009.
The suit is "Gray v. Mobile Messenger Americas, Inc., Case
Number: 0:2008cv61089," filed in the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga,
presiding, with referral to Magistrate Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum.
The class counsel are:
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Myles McGuire, Esq.
Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
KamberEdelson LLC
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 550
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 1-866-541-0323
Mobile Messenger's counsel is:
Philip F. Atkins-Pattenson
Sheppared Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Claims Administrator:
Gray v. Mobile Messenger Americas, Inc.
P.O. Box 6177
Novato, CA 94949-6177
PFF BANCORP: Faces California Lawsuit Over Imprudent Investment
---------------------------------------------------------------
PFF Bancorp Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over
allegations that it imprudently invested employees' money in its
own stock, costing them millions of dollars, CourtHouse News
Service reports.
This class action asserts claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), including
Sections 409 and 502(a)(2), 29 USC Sections 1109 and 1132(a)(2).
The plaintiff, a participant in the PFF Bank & Trust 401(k) Plan
and the PFF Bank & Trust & Employee Stock Ownership Plan, brings
this action to recover losses incurred by the plans and
participants and beneficiaries of the plans.
The plaintiff seeks to recover millions of dollars in losses
arising from the imprudent purchase and investment in the common
stock of PFF by fiduciaries of both plans when these fiduciaries
knew that PFF was not accurately recording its financial
condition on its books and records or properly disclosing its
condition to the public. These fiduciaries continued to invest
in PFF stock until PFF became effectively insolvent when
auditors were preparing a potential "going concern" opinion.
The plaintiff seeks to represent all participants in or
beneficiaries of the plans whose individual plan accounts were
invested in PFF common stock at any time between Feb. 2003, and
June 16, 2008.
The suit is "Pauline Perez, et al. v. PFF Bancorp Inc., et al.,
Case No. EDCV08-1093 SGL PLAx," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Schwartz, Daniels & Bradley
29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-1555
Phone: 310-478-5838
818-838-8900
Fax: 310-478-1232
PRISON HEALTH: Pa. Court Yet to Certify Physician's Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Trial
Division, has yet to rule on a motion for class certification
that was filed in a purported class action lawsuit against
Prison Health Services, Inc., a unit of the America Service
Group, Inc., and the City of Philadelphia.
The suit was filed by Andrew Berkowitz, M.D., an individual
physician and independent contractor in Philadelphia. The
plaintiff filed the suit as a putative class action on Aug. 2,
2006, before the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Trial Division.
The plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages for the class,
particularly damages in the amount of at least $9,588,
individually.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff provided services to
inmates at the Philadelphia Prison System at the request of the
defendants and that the defendants breached the alleged
contractual duties owed to him by paying an amount alleged to be
less than the full amount the plaintiff billed for his medical
services.
On Sept. 22, 2006, the City of Philadelphia filed a cross-claim
against Prison Health alleging breach of contract, negligence
and seeking indemnification. On Sept. 29, 2006, Prison Health
filed its answer to the plaintiff's complaint, which answer
included a cross-claim against the City of Philadelphia for
contribution and indemnification.
The plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on
Oct. 1, 2007, and Prison Health and the City have since
responded to this motion.
On March 10, 2008, the court held a hearing on the motion for
class certification, and Prison Health is currently waiting on a
ruling.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
America Service Group Inc. -- http://www.asgr.com/-- through
its subsidiaries Prison Health Services, Inc., EMSA Limited
Partnership, Correctional Health Services, LLC, and Secure
Pharmacy Plus, LLC, contracts to provide and administer managed
healthcare services, including the distribution of
pharmaceuticals throughout the U.S.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dismissed From Md. Mutual Funds Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc., and Prudential Securities, Inc.,
were dismissed with prejudice from the remaining actions in the
multi-district proceeding entitled, "In re: Mutual Funds
Investment Litigation, MDL-1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861,
04-md-15862, 04-md-15863, and 04-md-15864."
In October 2004, Prudential Financial and Prudential Securities
were named as defendants in several class action suits brought
on behalf of purchasers and holders of shares in a number of
mutual fund complexes.
The actions were consolidated as part of the multi-district
proceeding, "In re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-
1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md-15862, 04-md-15863,
and 04-md-15864," which is pending with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.
The complaints allege that purchasers and holders of mutual
funds were harmed by dilution of the funds' values and excessive
fees caused by market timing and late trading. It is seeking
unspecified damages.
In August 2005, the company was dismissed from several of the
actions, without prejudice to repleading the state claims, but
remains a defendant in other actions in the consolidated
proceeding.
In June 2008, the company was dismissed with prejudice from the
remaining actions consolidated in "In re: Mutual Fund Investment
Litigation," other than "Saunders v. Putnam American Government
Income Fund, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," according to
the company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the company
had approximately $616 billion of assets under management.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the company offers an
array of financial products and services, including life
insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, asset management, banking
and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Md. Court Considers Motions in "Saunders"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to
rule on motions filed by both parties in the purported class-
action suit "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund,
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," which names Prudential
Financial, Inc., and Prudential Securities, Inc., as defendants.
The suit was one of several consolidated under the multi-
district proceeding entitled, "In re: Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation, MDL-1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md-
15862, 04-md-15863, and 04-md-15864."
In July 2006, in "Saunders," the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland had granted the plaintiffs leave to refile
their federal securities law claims against Prudential
Securities.
In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed alleging
federal securities law claims on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatory
and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.
In July 2008, the company moved for summary judgment and the
plaintiffs moved for class certification in "Saunders,"
according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund,
et al.,, Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. (stanchesley@wsbclaw.com)
Waite Schneider Bayless and Chesley Co LPA
1513 Fourth and Vine Tower
Cincinnati, OH 45205
Phone: 1-513-621-0267
Fax: 1-513-381-2375
- and -
Stephen V. Saia, Esq.
Law Offices of Stephen V. Saia
70 Old Cart Path Ln.
Pembroke, MA 02359
Phone: 1-781-826-8401
Fax: 1-775-201-8079
Representing the defendants are:
Jonathan D. Their, Esq. (jthier@cahill.com)
Cahill Gordon and Reindel LLP
80 Pine St.
New York, NY 10005
Phone: 1-212-701-3000
Fax: 1-212-269-5420
- and -
James R. Carroll, Esq. (jcarroll@skadden.com)
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP
One Beacon St., 31st Fl.
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: 1-617-573-4800
Fax: 1-617-573-4822
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces Consolidated Brokers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc., continues to face a multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California that accuses the company of improperly classifying
stockbrokers as exempt employees under state and federal wage
and hour laws.
The suits -- recently consolidated in California for coordinated
trial proceedings -- also name as defendants Prudential
Securities, Inc. and Prudential Equity Group LLC.
Two of the complaints -- "Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC,
and Prudential Securities Incorporated," and "Goldstein v.
Prudential Financial, Inc." -- were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Goldstein complaint purports to have been filed on behalf of
a nationwide class. The Janowsky complaint alleges a class of
New York brokers.
Three complaints were filed in the California Superior Court and
purport to have been brought on behalf of classes of California
brokers. These suits are captioned:
1. "Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential
Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC;"
2. "DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated,
Prudential Equity Group, Inc. and Wachovia Securities;"
and
3. "Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and
Prudential Securities Inc."
The Carayanis complaint was subsequently withdrawn without
prejudice in May 2006.
In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, captioned "Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et al."
The Panesenko complaint is alleging that the company failed to
pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal
law and that improper deductions were made from the
stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law.
In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in "Badain v.
Wachovia Securities, et al.," a purported nationwide class-
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York. The complaint alleges that Prudential
Securities failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation
of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made
from the stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law.
In December 2006, all cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California by the
Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings.
The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages,
recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.
The company reporter no further development in the consolidated
matter in its July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the company
had approximately $616 billion of assets under management.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the company offers an
array of financial products and services, including life
insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, asset management, banking
and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Certifies Class in "Bouder"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified
a class in the matter "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and
Prudential Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-
04359."
The suit, filed in October 2006, is claiming that the company
failed to pay overtime to insurance agents who were registered
representatives in violation of federal and state law, and that
improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in
violation of state law.
In March 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a nationwide class, according to the
company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential
Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge
Dennis M. Cavanaugh, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
James V. Bashian, Esq. (jbashian@bashianlaw.com)
Law Office of James V. Bashian, PC
Fairfield Commons, 271 Route 46 West, Suite F207
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: 973-227-6330
Representing the defendants is:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. (clowe@ny.seyfarth.com)
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018-1405
Phone: 212-218-5523
Fax: 212-218-5526
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Overtime & Benefits Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc., and Prudential Insurance Co. are
facing a purported class action lawsuit in California in
connection with overtime pay and benefits, according to the
company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
In March 2008, a purported nationwide class-action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. The suit, captioned "Wang v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. and Prudential Insurance, Case No. 3:08-cv-00526-LAB-NLS,"
was filed on behalf of agents who sold the company's financial
products.
The complaint alleges claims that the company failed to pay
overtime and provide other benefits in violation of state and
federal law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts.
The suit is "Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential
Insurance, Case No. 3:08-cv-00526-LAB-NLS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge
Larry Alan Burns, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com)
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz and Kessler
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 925-945-0770
Fax: 925-945-8792
Representing the defendants is:
George Elias Preonas, Esq. (gpreonas@seyfarth.com)
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-277-7200
Fax: 310-201-5219
RAMBUS INC: Court Yet to Rule on Antitrust Suit Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion by Rambus, Inc., that sought the
dismissal of a consolidated lawsuit captioned "In re: Rambus
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv-04852-RMW."
On Aug. 10, 2006, the first of nine class-action suits was filed
against Rambus in 2006, alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust laws, violations of state consumer protection laws,
and various common law claims based almost entirely on the same
conduct, which was the subject of the Federal Trade Commission's
July 31, 2006 opinion.
Essentially, the FTC found that Rambus violated Section 5 of the
FTC Act in a way that allowed the company to obtain monopoly
power in -- or that by acting with intent to monopolize it
created a dangerous probability of monopolization in --
synchronous DRAM technology markets.
Three of these lawsuits filed outside of California were
dismissed pursuant to agreement of the parties.
The remaining six cases were consolidated under the caption, "In
re Rambus Antitrust Litigation, 06-4852 RMW (N.D. Cal.)," which
is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
The consolidated complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief, disgorgement, restitution and compensatory and punitive
damages in an unspecified amount, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On March 28, 2007, Rambus filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On July 27, 2007, the court heard oral
argument on Rambus' motion and took the matter under submission.
No final order has been issued to date, according to the
company's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "In re: Rambus Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:06-
cv-04852-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
(cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
Finkelstein Thompson LLP
100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-398-8700
Fax: 415-398-8704
Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@classcounsel.com)
Green Welling LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 2750
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-477-6700
Fax: 415-477-6710
- and -
Merrick Scott Rayle, Esq. (mrayle@lshllp.com)
Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
212 Wood Street
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227
Phone: 831-333-0309
Fax: 831-333-0325
Representing the defendants is:
Robert P. Feldman, Esq. (rfeldman@wsgr.com)
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Phone: 650-493-9300
Fax: 650-565-5100
SMITH BARNEY: $33MM Deal in Calif. Sex Bias Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted final approval to a $33-million settlement reached by
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. -- doing business as Smith Barney
-- in a lawsuit filed on behalf of all women employed as
financial advisors in:
(i) the United States branches of Smith Barney's retail
brokerage division at any time from August 24, 2003,
through March 1, 2008; or
(ii) the California branches of Smith Barney's retail
brokerage division at any time from June 25, 2003,
through March 1, 2008.
In 2006, five female financial advisors filed an amended class
action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, charging sex discrimination at Smith
Barney. The filing amends a class action complaint commenced in
March 2005 by adding additional plaintiffs from Southern
California and Florida, and amplifies the allegations in the
original class action complaint.
The original plaintiffs, Renee Fassbender-Amochaev, Deborah
Orlando and Kathryn N. Varner, and two new plaintiffs, Ivy So
and Lisa Strange Weatherby, claim that they were discriminated
against with respect to their compensation at Smith Barney.
Specifically, the women allege that Smith Barney:
-- systemically discriminates against women in allocating
business opportunities;
-- discriminates in the account distribution process,
routinely assigning smaller and less valuable accounts
to female brokers, including those who outperform their
male counterparts, than to male brokers;
-- fails to provide women with the same level of sales
support, administrative support, and other support as it
provides to men; and
-- maintains a corporate culture hostile to female
professionals.
In 2007, Citigroup Inc. and the female financial advisors at
Smith Barney, the retail brokerage arm of Citigroup, "reached
substantive agreements on the monetary terms" of a settlement of
the gender bias lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2007).
The parties entered into a four-year settlement agreement that
received preliminary Court approval early this year (Class
Action Reporter, May 5, 2008).
The deal includes comprehensive injunctive relief regarding
compensation, account distribution policies, partnership
arrangements, branch manager promotions, retention, diversity
training, and complaint processing, among other things.
The settlement also calls for the appointment of an independent
Diversity Monitor and an independent Industrial Psychologist to
effectuate the terms of the Agreement. In addition, the
settlement establishes a class monetary fund of $33 million,
plus interest as of December 15, 2007. A Claims Administrator
is expected to determine the allocation of monies among class
members.
The settlement was the result of intensive negotiations
supervised by experienced neutral mediator Hunter Hughes, Esq.,
of Atlanta, Georgia.
"As a woman who is committed to a career in the financial
services industry, I am proud to see the changes this settlement
has created for other women at the company," said Renee
Fassbender-Amochaev, one of the lead plaintiffs.
Cyrus Mehri, Esq., of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, Co-Lead Counsel for
the class, explained, "We are delighted that over fifty percent
of the class members filed claim forms for monetary relief so
far."
"This settlement not only provides serious monetary benefits for
all class members, but also real, institutional improvements for
female brokers at the company," said Kelly M. Dermody, Esq., a
partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Co-Lead
Class Counsel.
Adam Klein, Esq., of Outten & Golden, LLP stated, "We are
pleased that the Court approved the settlement."
The suit is "Amochaev, et al. v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-01298-PJH," filed in the U.S. District court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton, presiding, with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq. (ealexander@lchb.com)
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
3319 West End Avenue, Suite 600
Nashville, TN 37203-1074
Phone: 615-313-9000
Lisa M. Bornstein, Esq. (lbornstein@findjustice.com)
Sandi Farrell, Esq. (sfarrell@findjustice.com)
Cyrus Mehri, Esq. (cmehri@findjustice.com)
Anna M. Pohl, Esq. (apohl@findjustice.com)
Mehri & Skalet PLLC
1250 Connecticut
Avenue, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-822-5100
Fax: 202-822-4997
- and -
Piper Hoffman, Esq. (ph@outtengolden.com)
Adam T. Klein, Esq. (atk@outtengolden.com)
Justin M. Swartz, Esq. (jms@outtengolden.com)
Outten & Golden LLP
3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-245-1000
Fax: 212-977-4005
Representing the defendants are:
Jay Cohen, Esq. (jaycohen@paulweiss.com)
Beth Susan Frank, Esq. (bfrank@paulweiss.com)
Audra Jan Soloway, Esq. (asoloway@paulweiss.com)
Daniel John Toal, Esq. (dtoal@paulweiss.com)
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Phone: 212-373-3000
Fax: 212-373-2399
- and -
Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq. (heinickema@mto.com)
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco
CA 94105-2907
Phone: 415-512-4000
Fax: 415-512-4077
SMITHKLINEBECHAM: Faces Pennsylvania Suit Over 'Flonase' Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
SmithKlineBeecham Corp. is facing a class-action complaint
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging it illegally delayed generic versions of
its allergy drug Flonase (fluticasone propionate), CourtHouse
News Service reports.
Named plaintiff -- International Association of Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local No. 79
Health Fund -- brings this nationwide class action on behalf of
a proposed class of end payors of the prescription drug Flonase
and its generic equivalent, fluticasone propionate.
The plaintiff requests that:
-- the court determine that this action may be maintained
as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and direct that reasonable
notice of this action, as provided by Rule 23(c)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Procedure, be given to the class;
-- adjudge and decree the acts alleged, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 57 and 18 USC Section 2201(a), to be in
violation of the state laws identified;
-- award the class actual damages and multiple damages or
punitive damages where available by law in an amount to
be determined at trial;
-- permanently enjoin the defendant from continuing its
unlawful conduct, so as to assure that similar
anticompetitive conduct does not occur in the future;
-- award plaintiff and the class their costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law;
and
-- grant any such other further relief to which plaintiff
may be entitled and/or is necessary to correct the
anticompetitive effects caused by the unlawful conduct
of defendant and as the court deems just and/or
equitable.
The suit is "International Association of Bridge, Structural,
Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local No. 79 Health Fund
et al. v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Representing the plaintiff is:
David J. Cohen, Esq. (dcohen@smbb.com)
Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, PC
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-496-8282
Fax: 215-496-0999
SUNRISE PROPANE: Juroviesky & Ricci Files Ontario Nuisance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP and Shibley Righton
LLP, Barristers and Solicitors, have filed a class action
lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Sunrise
Propane Industrial Gases and other relevant parties.
The suit claims monetary compensation for, among other claims,
nuisance, negligence and strict liability against the
defendants.
For more information, contact:
Henry Juroviesky
Juroviesky and Ricci LLP
4950 Yonge St., Ste. 904
Toronto, ON, Canada
Phone: 416-481-0718
Fax: 416-481-1792
e-mail: info@jrclassactions.com
- and -
Arthur O. Jacques (arthur.jacques@shibleyrighton.com)
Shibley Righton LLP
250 University Avenue, Suite 700
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3E5
Phone: 416-214-5213
Fax: 416-214-5413
TELMEX USA: Faces N.J. Suit Over Prepaid Phone Calling Cards
------------------------------------------------------------
Telmex USA, LLC, is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey over
allegations that it cheats people who buy its prepaid telephone
calling cards, CourtHouse News Service reports.
Named plaintiff Nora Monday seeks to represent a class of
purchasers of the defendant's prepaid calling cards, whom
Defendant has routinely victimized through a common course of
consumer abuses and deception involving systematic, material
omissions of fact.
The prepaid calling cards are cards that embody a right to
exchange the monetary value stated on the card for telephone
calling time.
According to the complaint, consumers pay the price stated on
the prepaid calling card to make long-distance phone calls. To
induce consumers to purchase its cards, Telmex's cards are pre-
printed with standard verbiage, including highly visible and
prominent price points, sometimes as low as $5.
The defendant markets and sells its prepaid calling vards
through retail outlets and distributors through convenience
stores, gas stations, and other retail locations often in low
income and immigrant communities.
Telmex Cards, however, are not what they appear to be. Telmex
leads consumers into believing they are buying calling time when
purchasing its Prepaid Calling Cards, when in reality the
plaintiff and class members only receive a fraction of the
calling time they reasonably expect.
CourtHouse notes that the defendant fails to clearly and
conspicuously disclose material facts and conditions on use of
its Cards, including how much the consumer pays per minute (for
example, 10¢ per minute of calling time), and that a large
portion of the stated price on the Cards does not go to pay for
calling time but for a host of standard conditions, fees and
charges that the defendant surreptitiously imposes for its own
profit. These fees are not regulated rates or taxes, but Telmex
fees and surcharges that Telmex intentionally imposes on
unsuspecting consumers to reap greater profits.
In truth and in fact, without the foregoing information,
consumers have no way of knowing just what they are buying, the
suit says. Had the defendant clearly and conspicuously
disclosed how much the Card is really worth in terms of what the
consumer pays per minute of calling time and that the stated
monetary value of its Cards would be greatly reduced or
eliminated not by calling time but by the defendant's
undisclosed fees, surcharges and conditions, the plaintiff and
the class members would not have purchased them. The defendant
has uniformly deprived them from making informed decisions about
buying the defendant's cards.
Through its course of conduct, the defendant has injured the
plaintiff and the class members by systematically depriving the
plaintiff and other purchasers of its Cards like the class
members of the full face value of the Cards purchased from the
defendant to make long-distance calls.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
a. whether the defendant imposed standardized conditions,
fees and surcharges on uses of its Cards;
b. whether the defendant legibly, clearly and conspicuously
disclosed the standardized conditions, fees and
surcharges on uses of its Cards;
c. whether the defendant legibly, clearly and conspicuously
disclosed the value of its Cards and how much calling
time consumers like the plaintiff and class members were
actually buying when they purchased the Cards;
d. whether consumers can reasonably expect that by paying
the stated price of the defendant's Prepaid Calling Card
they are predominately buying calling time;
e. whether the defendant's course of conduct, and omissions
are material;
f. whether the plaintiff and class members would have
purchased the defendant's Card had they known that by
paying the stated price of the defendant's Prepaid
Calling Card they were not predominately buying calling
time;
g. whether the defendant engaged in the knowing omissions
of material facts with the intent that the plaintiff and
the class members would rely on such omissions;
h. whether the defendant engaged in deceptive, unfair or
unconscionable acts or practices;
i. whether the defendant was unjustly enriched through its
course of conduct;
j. whether the plaintiff and members of the class have
sustained ascertainable losses by reason of the
defendant's wrongful course of conduct and, if so, the
proper measure of those losses;
k. whether the plaintiff and members of the class are
entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief; and
l. whether the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
declaratory judgment.
The plaintiff asks the court:
-- for an order certifying the Class under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing
the plaintiff and her counsel of record to represent the
proposed Classes;
-- for an order declaring that the defendant violated the
Consumer Protection Acts as defined above, and that
their course of conduct constituted unjust enrichment;
-- to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the
classes against the defendant;
-- to award the plaintiff and the members of the classes
redress including damages, full restitution and
disgorgement of all revenues where allowable, earnings,
profits, compensation and benefits which may have been
obtained by the defendant as a result of its unlawful
course of conduct, acts or practices;
-- to issue an injunction against the defendant to cease
and desist from the unlawful conduct alleged;
-- to award the plaintiff and the class attorney's fees and
costs; and
-- grant such further relief as the Court deems just.
The suit is "Nora Monday, et al. v. Telmex USA, LLC, Case No.
2:33-av-00001," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
Representing the plaintiff are:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart &
Olstein
5 Becker Farm Rd.
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: 973-994-1700
TIME WARNER: Faces Kansas Antitrust Lawsuit Over Monopoly Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is facing an antitrust class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas over allegations that it abuses its monopoly on cable
service in Kansas through an illegal tying arrangement that
forces premium-channel customers to rent a cable box from Time
Warner rather than buy a box from the manufacturer of their
choice, CourtHouse News Service reports.
This is a class action brought on behalf of all persons who
purchase premium calbe services from Time Warner in the State of
Kansas.
The plaintiffs say Time Warner forces them to pay a monthly fee
for their cable box on top of the monthly fee for access to
cable TV shows, and that it will not sell premium cable access
unless customers also rent the cable box.
"In a matter of months, the rental fees the class is forced to
pay for their cable boxes supplied by Time Warner greatly exceed
their worth," the class claims.
The class claims Time Warner is running an end-around FCC
regulations, which require cable providers to make descrambling
and security operations available to customers through a
"CableCARD" instead of a cable box.
The class further claims Time Warner pushes its box as superior
to the CableCARD, refuses to mention the CableCARD on its Web
site, tells customers that "there are limitations to a CableCARD
connection," and tells customers that "Digital Cable and Digital
Receiver are required to access Premium service. To receive all
services, Digital Cable, remote and lease of a Digital set-top
box are required."
The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:
(a) whether Time Warner is liable to plaintiff and the
class for violations of federal anti-trust laws;
(b) whether Time Warner has established illegal tying
arrangements for the rental of cable boxes in violation
of federal and state law;
(c) whether Time Warner's actions caused injury to
plaintiff and the class and whether Time Warner should
be enjoined from further violations;
(d) whether Time Warner is liable to plaintiff and the
class for treble damages for its violation of federal
anti-trust laws; and
(e) whether Time Warner has violated the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act.
The plaintiffs asks the court for:
-- an order certifying the proposed class pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and appointing
plaintiff's counsel as lead counsel for the class;
-- an order that Time Warner has violated Section 2 of the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act;
-- an order under 15 USC Section 26 enjoining Time Warner
from illegally tying and bundling its cable service with
the need to rent a cable box;
-- an order for such other relief as the court deems just
and proper, including, but not limited to, any and all
such damages, including treble damages pursuant to 15
USC Section 15, together with prejudgment interest as
provided by law, reasonable attorneys fees, and payment
of costs and expenses incurred in filing this class
action.
-- an order finding that Time Warner is liable under the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act and awarding plaintiff
and the class actual damages;
-- an order awarding plaintiff and the class attorneys'
fees and costs in connection with maintaining this
action; and
-- any other equitable relief the court deems necessary or
proper, including the imposition of civil penalties.
The suit is "Mattew Meeds, et al. v. Time Warner, Inc., Case No.
08-CV-2372 JWL/DJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
John F. Edgar, Esq.
John M. Edgar, Esq.
Michael D. Pospisil, Esq.
1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64105
Phone: 816-531-0033
Fax: 816-531-3322
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Court Okays $50MM Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts gave
final approval to the $50,000,000 settlement in the consolidated
securities fraud class-action suit filed against Transkaryotic
Therapies, Inc., which was acquired by Shire PLC on July 27,
2005.
In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported
class action suits against:
-- TKT; and
-- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer.
The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the
period from January 2001 through January 2003. Each of the
complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.
They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information
concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. Marketing
approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during
that period.
The court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel on
April 9, 2003, and subsequently, consolidated all cases into one
class action lawsuit entitled, "In re Transkaryotic Therapies,
Inc., Securities Litigation."
In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint against:
-- TKT;
-- Dr. Selden;
-- Daniel Geffken, TKT's former chief financial officer;
-- Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead,
III, and Wayne P. Yetter, then members of TKT's board
of directors;
-- William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members
of TKT's board of directors; and
-- SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann.
The defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on Sept. 17, 2003, which the the lead plaintiffs
opposed. On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments
regarding the motions to dismiss and took these motions under
advisement.
Thereafter, on May 26, 2004, the court issued an order granting
in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.
The defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint
on July 16, 2004.
In November 2005, the court granted a motion by the plaintiffs
seeking class certification. The certified class includes all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Transkaryotic common stock during the period from Jan. 4, 2001,
through Jan. 10, 2003, inclusive (Class Action Reporter,
March 12, 2008).
The court had entered judgment on all claims alleged against SG
Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Pacific
Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann & Co.
On June 5, 2006, the court entered judgment on all claims
alleged against Messrs. Gilbert, Leff, Moorhead, Yetter, Miller,
and Thomas.
On Nov. 9, 2006, Mr. Geffken filed an Agreement for Judgment on
all claims alleged against him.
In October 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the Class Action Shareholder Suit, subject to court
approval, for $50 million.
Shire will contribute $27 million toward the settlement and its
insurance companies will contribute the remaining $23 million.
The $27 million settlement cost has been provided for within
SG&A during this quarter.
In February 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted preliminary approval to the settlement.
The settlement was approved by the Court on a final basis on
June 11, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert Finkel, Esq.(RFinkel@wolfpopper.com)
Wolf Popper LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-759-4600
Fax: 212-486-2093
- and -
Darren Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbtk.com)
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 610-667-7706
Fax: 610-667-7056
Representing the defendants are:
Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
(michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02115
Phone: 617-526-6145
Fax: 617-526-5000
Michael K. Fee, Esq. (MFEE@ropesgray.com)
Ropes & Gray, LLP
One International Place
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-951-7000
Fax: 617-951-7050
- and -
Thomas J. Dougherty, Esq. (dougherty@skadden.com)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
One Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: 617-573-4800
UNITEHERE PENSION: Breached Fiduciary Duties in California Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California claims that the Board of
Trustees of the San Diego Unitehere Pension Fund, its Local 30
Secretary Treasurer Jeff Eatchel, and Allied Administrators
breached fiduciary duty and abused beneficiaries, CourtHouse
News Service reports.
The plaintiffs bring this action to recover damages and for
equitable relief under the provisions of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 29 USC Section 1001, et seq; and 29 USC
Sections 1104, 1109, 1132 and 1140 to redress the harms suffered
by plaintiffs.
The suit asserts that the defendants' wrongful conduct was done
with the purpose of interfering with a right to which plaintiff
would have become entitled to. The plaintiffs seek to recover
plan benefits to which they were entitled. The defendants'
breached their fiduciary duties. The defendants failed to
provide information and notices as required.
The plaintiffs bring this suit to enjoin violations of ERISA or
the plan, or:
-- to obtain other equitable relief for defendants'
interference with plaintiffs' protected rights;
-- to recover a $100 a day civil penalty for failure to
supply requested information; and
-- to recover insurance or annuity benefits were there was
a breach of fiduciary duty of the terms of the plan.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for the claim of breach
of contract brought as a supplemental state claim under the laws
of the State of California.
The plaintiffs seek punitive damages arising from claims brought
pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
The suit is "Charles Yip, et al. v. Board of Trustees of the San
Diego Unitehere Pension Fund, et al., Case No. 08 CV 1453 DMS
WMc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Timothy L. Brictson, Esq.
Law Office of Brictson & Cohn
2214 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-296-9387
Fax: 619-232-0583
UNITRIN: Still Faces Louisiana & Texas Hurricane-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unitrin, Inc., continues to face putative class action lawsuits
in Louisiana and Texas arising out of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita.
During the course of 2007, Unitrin and certain of its
subsidiaries, like many property and casualty insurers, were
forced to defend a growing number of individual lawsuits, mass
actions, and statewide putative class actions in Louisiana and
Texas arising out of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
In these matters, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages, and equitable relief.
The company reported no development in the matters in its
Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, is engaged in providing property and casualty
insurance, life and health insurance, and consumer finance
services. The company conducts its operations through six
operating segments: Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty,
Unitrin Direct, Unitrin Business Insurance, Life and Health
Insurance and Consumer Finance. Unitrin's property and casualty
insurance business operations are conducted through Kemper Auto
and Home, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct and Unitrin Business
Insurance.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: $10MM Securities Suit Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted final approval to a proposed settlement of all
federal securities class action claims that were filed against
Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (Pink Sheets:VTSS) and all
related federal and state shareholder derivative actions that
were filed against the company.
The previously disclosed settlements required that Vitesse adopt
corporate governance measures which include implementing certain
policies for stock option grants and compensation decisions,
incorporating greater shareholder participation in the
procedures for nominating independent directors, adopting
additional standards of director independence, and adding a lead
independent director. Vitesse has commenced implementing these
measures.
Case Background
On May 2, 2006, an investor sued Vitesse Semiconductor in
federal court, accusing the company of securities law
violations.
The class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and seeks damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who acquired Vitesse securities from Oct. 23, 2003, to April 26,
2006, inclusive.
The lawsuit claims that Vitesse and three individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and
SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.
Vitesse engages in the design, development, manufacturing, and
marketing of integrated circuits for systems manufacturers in
the communications and storage industries.
According to the complaint, Vitesse and three individual
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements during the class
period that artificially inflated the company's stock price.
Specifically, the defendants:
-- failed to properly account for credits issued to or
requested by customers;
-- failed to properly apply payments received to the
appropriate account receivable; and
-- failed to properly account for the stock options granted
to senior officers and directors.
Settlement
In 2006, Vitesse entered into a proposed settlement of all
federal securities class action claims.
According to a report by WELT ONLINE, Christopher R. Gardner,
Chief Executive Officer stated, "We are very pleased to reach a
settlement with the plaintiffs in these actions. This
litigation has been a distraction for Vitesse management and
employees as well as its customers and shareholders. This
settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve the
uncertainty associated with these litigations and put an end to
the significant legal expenses we would have incurred in the
event we had to continue to litigate."
The proposed settlement of the class action will include a cash
payment to the settlement fund of $10.2 million:
-- $8.75 million to be paid by Vitesse's directors' and
officers' liability insurers, and
-- a total of $1.45 million to be paid by Louis R.
Tomasetta and Eugene F. Hovanec, two of the former
executives of Vitesse.
The same two former executives also will contribute all shares
of Vitesse common stock that they own, totaling 1,272,669
shares.
In addition, Vitesse will contribute 2,650,000 shares of Vitesse
common stock and no cash to the class fund.
In addition, under the proposed agreement, the company and
certain current and former officers and directors of the company
who were named as defendants will be dismissed from the lawsuits
and will obtain releases from the class plaintiffs.
In January, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted preliminary approval to the proposed
settlement of all federal securities class action claims that
were filed against the company (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11,
2008).
The suit is "In Re: Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 06-CV-02639," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
212 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016
Phone: 212-889-3700
Fax: 212-684-519
e-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com
Brodsky & Smith, LLC
11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
Phone: 610-668-7987
Fax: 610-660-0450
e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
Federman & Sherwood
120 North Robinson, Suite 2720
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102
Phone: 405-235-1560
e-mail: wfederman@aol.com
- and -
Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Ste 2525
Baltimore, MD, 21202
Phone: 410-332-0030
e-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
WEST MARINE: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Labor Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
West Marine, Inc., is facing a labor-related lawsuit in
California that was brought on behalf of current and former
hourly-paid associates employed by the company.
The class action suit was filed before the California Superior
Court, County of Orange, on March 21, 2008, by a former hourly
associate. The suit alleges, among other things, that the
company engaged in unfair business practices and failed to
provide meal and rest periods, correct itemized statements, and
appropriately pay discharged associates in violation of certain
applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.
The plaintiff seeks to represent himself and all similarly
situated current and former hourly-paid associates employed by
West Marine in the State of California. The suit seeks
reimbursement of wages, penalties and interest allegedly owed
under the relevant California code sections, as well as an
unspecified amount of damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs recoverable by law.
The company filed an answer denying all charges and have served
discovery, according to its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 28, 2008.
West Marine, Inc. -- http://www.westmarine.com/-- is a
specialty retailer of boating supplies. The company operates
through three segments: Stores, Port Supply (wholesale) and
Direct Sales (catalog and Internet), which all sell after-market
recreational boating supplies directly to customers. At
Dec. 29, 2007, West Marine offered its products through 372
stores in 38 states, Puerto Rico and Canada. The company's Port
Supply segment distributes marine equipment in the U.S. The
Direct Sales segment, which includes its catalog and Internet
operations, offers customers all over the world more than 80,000
products. The company's three distribution centers are located
in Rock Hill, South Carolina, Hollister, California and
Hagerstown, Maryland.
New Securities Fraud Cases
CARMAX INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Virgina Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 6, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against CarMax, Inc.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.
The class period is from April 2, 2008, through June 17, 2008.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the class.
Interested parties may move the court no later than October 6,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
Federman & Sherwood
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/
GT SOLAR: Wolf Popper Files New Hampshire Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against GT
Solar International, Inc., and certain other defendants in the
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
on behalf of investors who purchased GT Solar common stock in
its initial public offering or on the open market on July 24,
2008.
GT Solar had an initial public offering on or about July 23,
2008, selling 30.3 million shares of common stock at $16.50
each. The Registration Statement pursuant to which the IPO was
conducted contained allegedly misleading statements and omitted
material facts concerning sales of and demand for DSS furnaces,
GT Solar's most important product. This included statements
about sales to GT Solar's largest customer, LDK Solar Co., Ltd.,
which represented 62% of the company's revenue in the fiscal
year ended on March 31, 2008.
One day after GT Solar's IPO -- at 3:15 a.m. on July 25, 2008 --
LDK announced that it had "signed a contract" to purchase DSS
furnaces from JYT Corporation through 2010. This caused shares
of GT Solar to close at $12.49 per share, 24% below the IPO
price, on July 25, 2008.
The complaint alleges, in light of LDK's announcement, that the
IPO documents failed to disclose that:
(1) GT Solar was losing significant business from its
largest customer;
(2) that LDK would begin purchasing DSS furnaces from one
of GT Solar's greatest competitors, JYT Corporation;
and;
(3) GT Solar had already experienced a significant decline
in orders received from LDK, as manifested by the
company's admission that the proportion of its current
order backlog attributable to LDK was only 20%.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 30,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
James A. Harrod, Esq. - 212.451.9642
(jharrod@wolfpopper.com)
Anthony Green, Esq. - 212.451.9621
(agreen@wolfpopper.com)
Wolf Popper LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 877-370-7703 (toll free)
Fax: 212-486-2093
877-370-7704 (toll free)
e-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com/
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Brower Piven Files Securities in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of MRV Communications, Inc.
Though an earlier complaint alleges a class period of July 24,
2003, through June 5, 2008, other complaints have extended that
class period to include March 31, 2003, through June 5, 2008,
inclusive.
The complaint charges defendants with violations under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by withholding material facts
from the investing public.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, the
defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the
company's employee stock option grant practices (through
backdating) and financial results including:
-- that the company had problems with its internal controls
that prevented it from issuing accurate financial
reports and projections;
-- that due to improperly recorded stock-based compensation
expenses the company's financial results violated GAAP;
and
-- that the company's public disclosures covering a seven-
year period presented an inflated view of MRV's earnings
and earnings per share.
The complaint also alleges that on June 5, 2008, MRV announced
an expected restatement of its 2002 to 2008 financial statements
and that its previously-issued financial statements, earnings
press releases, and similar communications should no longer be
relied upon, thus causing the value of Company shares to
decline.
Interested parties may move the court no later than September 8,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Charles J. Piven, Esq.
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
The World Trade Center-Baltimore
401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: 410-332-0030
e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
REDDY ICE: Sarraf Gentile Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Reddy Ice
Holdings, Inc., between August 10, 2005, and March 6, 2008,
inclusive.
The class action was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the company's securities and
causing class members to overpay for the securities.
For more information, contact:
Joseph Gentile, Esq.
Sarraf Gentile LLP
11 Hanover Square
New York, NY 10005
Phone: 212-868-3610
Fax: 212-918-7967
Web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 37T Claims Remain v. BorgWarner at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., as of June 30, 2008, continues to face about
37,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2008.
Of those outstanding claims, about 27,000 are pending in three
jurisdictions, where significant tort reform activities are
underway.
As of March 31, 2008, the company faced about 37,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, in which about 27,000
were pending in three jurisdictions where significant tort
reform activities were underway. (Class Action Reporter, May 9,
2008)
Management said it believes that the Company's involvement is
limited because, in general, these claims relate to a few types
of automotive friction products that were manufactured many
years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos.
In the first six months of 2008, of about 5,400 claims resolved,
97 (1.8 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In 2007, of about 4,400
claims resolved, 194 (4.4 percent) resulted in any payment being
made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.
Before June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were covered by the Company's primary layer
insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended,
settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement. In June
2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of
the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.
This led the Company to access the next available layer of
insurance coverage. Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers
have paid asbestos-related litigation defense and settlement
expenses under a funding arrangement.
To date, the Company has paid US$36.7 million in defense and
indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received
US$12.1 million in cash from insurers. The outstanding balance
of US$24.6 million is expected to be fully recovered. At
Dec. 31, 2007, insurers owed US$20.6 million in association with
these claims.
At June 30, 2008, the Company has an estimated liability of
US$39.2 million for future claims resolutions, with a related
asset of US$39.2 million to recognize the insurance proceeds
receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims
that have yet to be resolved.
At Dec. 31, 2007, the comparable value of the insurance
receivable and accrued liability was US$39.6 million.
Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
highly engineered systems and components for powertrain
applications. Products are sold to original equipment
manufacturers ("OEMs") of light vehicles (i.e., passenger cars,
sport-utility vehicles ("SUVs"), cross-over vehicles, vans and
light-trucks). The Company's products fall into two segments:
Engine and Drivetrain.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA's Action Ongoing v. BorgWarner in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its historical general liability
insurers continue to face a declaratory judgment action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies (CNA).
CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is defending
and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-related
product liability claims.
The lawsuit, filed in January 2004, seeks to determine the
extent of insurance coverage available to the Company including
whether the available limits exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an
"aggregate" basis, and to determine how the applicable coverage
responsibilities should be apportioned.
On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding
the apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of
making insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs
pro rata to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold
the insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable
coverage.
Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is
reserved for appellate review at the end of the action.
In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-
related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of
insurance available for potential future asbestos-related
product claims.
Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
highly engineered systems and components for powertrain
applications. Products are sold to original equipment
manufacturers ("OEMs") of light vehicles (i.e., passenger cars,
sport-utility vehicles ("SUVs"), cross-over vehicles, vans and
light-trucks). The Company's products fall into two segments:
Engine and Drivetrain.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $339.3M in Losses & ALAE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.'s net unpaid losses and allocated
loss adjustment expense for asbestos exposures were
US$339,268,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008,
compared with US$328,954,000 for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2007.
The Company's gross unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos
exposures were US$421,617,000 for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2008, compared with US$421,380,000 for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2007.
The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental claims
arising from the sale of general liability, commercial multi-
peril and umbrella insurance policies, the majority of which
were written for accident years 1985 and prior.
Estimation of ultimate liabilities for these exposures is
unusually difficult due to issues like whether or not coverage
exists, definition of an occurrence, determination of ultimate
damages and allocation of such damages to financially
responsible parties.
Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Crum & Forster Holdings
Corp., through its subsidiaries, offers commercial property and
casualty insurance distributed through an independent producer
force located across the United States.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelly-Moore Paint Lawsuit Settled in April
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. against Crum
& Forster Holdings Corp. was settled in April 2008, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2008.
Kelly-Moore sued the Company in the San Francisco Superior Court
(California) in connection with certain general liability and
umbrella liability policies issued to it.
The litigation sought coverage for bodily injury claims arising
out of exposure to asbestos-containing products that Kelly-Moore
and a subsidiary sold between 1960 and 1978. It also sought
breach of contract and bad faith damages.
In May 2006, Kelly-Moore filed a second amended complaint
seeking to recover from the Company defense costs it allegedly
paid to defend asbestos claims. Kelly-Moore also sought payment
of sums for contribution and subrogation under three other
excess insurers' assigned claims based on defense payments
allegedly made on Kelly-Moore's behalf.
Kelly-Moore was seeking US$53 million for the defense costs,
plus interest, and an additional US$33 million for the
contribution/subrogation claims. Kelly-Moore also sought to
recover extra-contractual and punitive damages as part of its
bad faith claim.
The Company obtained a full and final release of all claims and
recorded a US$25.5 million charge, during the six months ended
June 30, 2008, to incurred losses including all legal and other
expenses associated with the defense of the case.
Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Crum & Forster Holdings
Corp., through its subsidiaries, offers commercial property and
casualty insurance distributed through an independent producer
force located across the United States.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Against PepsiAmericas Ongoing in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, LLC's asbestos insurance action against
PepsiAmericas, Inc., and other parties is ongoing in Cook County
Circuit Court, Minn., according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 1, 2008.
On May 31, 2005, Cooper filed and later served a lawsuit against
the Company, Pneumo Abex, LLC, and the Trustee of a Trust
(Trustee), captioned Cooper Industries, LLC v. PepsiAmericas,
Inc., et al., Case No. 05 CH 09214 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct.).
The claims involve the Trust and an insurance policy. Cooper
asserts that it was entitled to access US$34 million that
previously was in the Trust and was used to purchase the
insurance policy.
Cooper claims that Trust funds should have been distributed for
underlying Pneumo Abex asbestos claims indemnified by Cooper.
Cooper complains that it was deprived of access to money in the
Trust because of the Trustee's decision to use the Trust funds
to purchase the insurance policy.
Pneumo Abex, LLC, the corporate successor to the Company's prior
subsidiary, has been dismissed from the suit.
During the second quarter of 2006, the Trustee's motion to
dismiss, in which the Company had joined, was granted and three
counts against the Company based on the use of Trust funds were
dismissed with prejudice, as were all counts against the
Trustee, on the grounds that Cooper lacks standing to pursue
these counts because it is not a beneficiary under the Trust.
The Company then filed a separate motion to dismiss the
remaining counts against it. Its motion was also granted during
the second quarter of 2006 and all remaining counts against the
Company were dismissed with prejudice.
Cooper subsequently filed a notice of appeal with regard to all
rulings by the court dismissing the counts against the Company
and the Trustee. Prior to any oral argument, the appellate court
on Sept. 7, 2007, issued an opinion affirming the trial court's
opinion.
Cooper subsequently filed motion papers asking the Illinois
Supreme Court to accept a discretionary appeal of the rulings.
The Trustee then filed an opposition brief explaining why the
Illinois Supreme Court should not allow another appeal, and the
Company joined in that brief.
On Nov. 29, 2007, the Supreme Court of Illinois denied Cooper's
petition for leave to appeal the appellate court's Sept. 7, 2007
ruling. Cooper did not file a petition for certiorari seeking
discretionary review by the U.S. Supreme Court by the Feb. 27,
2008 deadline for such filing.
The Company also has certain indemnification obligations related
to product liability and toxic tort claims that might emanate
out of the 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex.
Other companies not owned by or associated with the Company also
are responsible to Pneumo Abex for the financial burden of all
asbestos product liability claims filed against Pneumo Abex
after a certain date in 1998, except for certain claims
indemnified by the Company.
Headquartered in Minneapolis, PepsiAmericas, Inc. bottles Pepsi
beverages, distributes Lipton Iced Teas, Schweppes (tonic water,
ginger ale from Dr Pepper Snapple Group), Starbucks Frappuccino,
and bottled water. The Company operates in 19 U.S. states
(mostly in the Midwest) and holds about 19 percent of the U.S.
market for Pepsi products.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO LLC Cases Ongoing v. SCC Affiliates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation's direct and indirect parent
corporations, including Americas Mining Corporation and Grupo
Mexico, have from time to time been named parties in various
litigation, including asbestos-related, involving Asarco LLC.
In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim
alleging fraudulent conveyance in connection with AMC's then-
proposed purchase of the Company from a subsidiary of Asarco.
That action was settled under a Consent Decree dated Feb. 2,
2003. In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in the Company
in Asarco.
In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre and other
parties, not including the Company, were named in a lawsuit
filed in New York State court in connection with alleged
asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC's purchase
of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent
conveyance.
The lawsuit filed in New York State court was stayed as a result
of the August 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Asarco.
However, on Nov. 16, 2007, this lawsuit after being removed to
federal court was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas in Brownsville, Tex., for resolution
in conjunction with a new lawsuit filed by Asarco, the debtor in
possession.
On Feb. 2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco, the debtor in
possession, alleging many of the matters previously claimed in
the New York State lawsuit, including that AMC's purchase of the
Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance.
In June 2008 the lawsuit was concluded in Brownsville, Tex. A
decision is expected in the near future.
In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy
petitions in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. In
August 2005, Asarco filed a voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex. Asarco's bankruptcy
case is being joined with the bankruptcy cases of its
subsidiaries.
Asarco's bankruptcy could result in additional claims being
filed against Grupo Mexico and its subsidiaries, including the
Company, Minera Mexico or its subsidiaries.
With its U.S. headquarters in Phoenix, Southern Copper
Corporation produces and sells copper. In producing copper,
valuable metallurgical by-products are also recovered, like
molybdenum, zinc, silver, lead and gold, which the Company also
produces and sells.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Inc. Subject to Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. continues to be subject to unresolved legal
actions, including asbestos-related, that arise in the normal
course of business.
The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes
related to product design, manufacture and performance liability
(including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues or intellectual property rights.
No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 1, 2008.
Headquartered in Peoria, Ill., Caterpillar Inc. makes
construction, mining, and logging machinery; diesel and natural
gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and electrical power-
generation systems. The Company offers rental services through
more than 1,600 outlets worldwide and it provides financing and
insurance for its dealers and customers.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. 3M Co. Drop to 4,700 at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of June 30, 2008, faces respirator mask or
asbestos lawsuits that purport to represent about 4,700
individual claimants, a significant reduction from about 8,790
individual claimants with actions pending at March 31, 2008.
Most of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently
pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's
mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company
and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace
exposures to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts
found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally
in the workplace.
A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as
well as products manufactured by other defendants, or
occasionally at Company premises.
Since about 2006, the Company has experienced a significant
decline in the number of new claims filed annually by apparently
unimpaired claimants.
Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a manufacturer,
technology innovator and marketer of various products and
services. The Company manages its operations in six operating
business segments: Industrial and Transportation, Health Care,
Display and Graphics, Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and
Protection Services, and Electro and Communications.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Company Cites $112M Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's respirator mask or asbestos liabilities were US$112
million as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$121 million as of
Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2008.
The Company estimated US$113 million as liabilities for
respirator mask or asbestos at March 31, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, May 16, 2008)
Respirator mask or asbestos insurance receivables were US$214
million as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$332 million as of
Dec. 31, 2007.
The Company estimated US$318 million for respirator mask or
asbestos insurance receivables at March 31, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, May 16, 2008)
On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers
(Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. ? both part
of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for
respirator mask or asbestos claims.
These insurers represent about US$14 million of the US$214
million insurance recovery receivable.
The action was filed in Hennepin County, Minn., and names, in
addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company's insurers. This
action is similar in nature to an action filed in 1994 with
respect to breast implant coverage, which ultimately resulted in
the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of 2003 that was largely in
the Company's favor.
At the Company's request, the case was transferred to Ramsey
County, over the objections of the insurers. The Minnesota
Supreme Court heard oral argument of the insurers' appeal of
that decision in March 2008 and ruled in May 2008 that the
proper venue of that case is Ramsey County.
As a result of settlements reached with its insurers, the
Company was paid US$104 million in the second quarter and the
Company currently has agreements in place to receive another
US$44 million in payments over the next four quarters in
connection with the respirator mask or asbestos receivable.
Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a manufacturer,
technology innovator and marketer of various products and
services. The Company manages its operations in six operating
business segments: Industrial and Transportation, Health Care,
Display and Graphics, Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and
Protection Services, and Electro and Communications.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Estimates $8M Aearo Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of June 30, 2008, through its newly acquired
Aearo Technologies Inc. subsidiary, recorded an US$8 million
estimate of the probable liabilities, for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims.
On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the
stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo.
Aearo manufactures and sells various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face,
fall and respiratory protection products.
As of June 30, 2008, Aearo and other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)
are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the
Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which
plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek
damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.
Responsibility for legal costs, settlements and judgments is
currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot,
American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert
and their insurers (Payor Group).
Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of
years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO
Safety" brand and owned the AO Safety Division of American
Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the
individual plaintiff.
Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by
an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11,
1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to
Cabot an annual fee of US$400,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against,
asbestos and silica-related product liability claims for
respirators manufactured prior to July 11, 1995.
Since the date of manufacture for a particular respirator
allegedly used in the past is often difficult to determine, the
parties have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the
use of respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica or
products containing asbestos or silica prior to Jan. 1, 1997.
With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or other "related
long latency diseases" on or after Jan. 1, 1997.
To date, Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee. Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this
arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its
obligations in these matters.
Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a manufacturer,
technology innovator and marketer of various products and
services. The Company manages its operations in six operating
business segments: Industrial and Transportation, Health Care,
Display and Graphics, Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and
Protection Services, and Electro and Communications.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sinnotts Favored in American Optical Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
upheld the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court,
which ordered for trial an asbestos lawsuit filed by James and
Freda Sinnott against American Optical Corporation and other
defendants.
The case is styled James Sinnott, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges Anthony O. Calabrese, Jr., Patricia Ann Blackmon, and
Kenneth A. Rocco entered judgment in Case No. 88062 on July 31,
2008.
The Sinnotts filed their initial complaint on Feb. 10, 2004 in
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court against several companies,
including the following: American Optical, Abex Corporation, now
known as Pneumo Abex LLC, and Viacom, Inc., Aqua-Chem Inc., and
others, alleging injury to Mr. Sinnott from workplace exposure
to products containing asbestos.
In April 2004, the Sinnotts dismissed without prejudice American
Optical and Pneumo Abex. In January 2005, the Sinnotts filed an
amended complaint, again naming American Optical and Pneumo Abex
as defendants.
Mr. Sinnott died on Aug. 25, 2005, and this action was
maintained by his surviving spouse. While this appeal was
pending, Mrs. Sinnott also died.
Because the amended complaint was filed after the effective date
of H.B. No. 292, American Optical filed a motion to
administratively dismiss the Sinnotts' claim for failure to
comply with R.C. 2307.92.
Pneumo Abex later joined that motion. Although the Sinnotts
opposed the motion to dismiss, they also provided supplemental
medical evidence and records regarding Mr. Sinnott's illness.
American Optical continued to argue for administrative
dismissal, claiming that the supplemental evidence did not
satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2307.91.
The trial court held that while the requirements of H.B. No. 292
applied to the amended complaint, the Sinnotts had fulfilled
those requirements, and the case could proceed to trial.
Appellants appealed to this court that was dismissed as
premature. Appellants then filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme
Court, who reversed and remanded the case on Oct. 25, 2007.
The Ohio Supreme Court determined that orders finding that
plaintiffs have made the prima facie showings required by R.C.
2307.92 were final and appealable. This case is now again before
the Appeals Court.
Appellants appealed the decision of the lower court. Having
reviewed the arguments of the parties and the pertinent law, the
Appeals Court affirmed the lower court.
Susan M. Audey, Esq., Christopher J. Caryl, Esq., Jeffrey A.
Healy, Esq., Irene C. Keyse-Walker, Esq., of Tucker Ellis & West
LLP in Cleveland, Ohio, represented American Optical Corporation
and Pneumo Abex LLC.
Reginald S. Kramer, Esq., of Oldham & Dowling in Akron, Ohio,
represented CBS Corporation.
Christopher J. Hickey, Esq., of Brent Coon & Associates, Carolyn
Kaye Ranke, Esq., Mary Brigid Sweeney, Esq., of Cleveland, Ohio,
represented James and Freda Sinnott.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rolla Resignation Over CAA Breach Accepted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New
York, accepted the resignation of Mario F. Rolla, Esq., over
asbestos-related violations of the Clean Air Act.
The case is styled In the Matter of Mario F. Rolla, an attorney
and counselor-at-law, resignor.
Judges A. Gail Prudenti, William F. Mastro, Reinaldo E. Rivera,
Robert A. Spolzino, and Anita R. Florio entered judgment in the
case on June 10, 2008.
Mr. Rolla has submitted an affidavit dated Dec. 18, 2007,
wherein he tendered his resignation as an attorney and
counselor-at-law. He was admitted to the Bar at a term of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial
Department on Dec. 7, 1959.
Mr. Rolla said that he has not practiced law in New York State
for about 10 to 15 years. He now submitted his affidavit of
resignation in light of his plea of guilty on March 22, 2007, to
an Information charging him with conspiracy to violate the Clean
Air Act before the Honorable David N. Hurd in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York.
Mr. Rolla acknowledged his obligation to timely provide the
Court with a record of his conviction. He submitted a copy of
the Information and the Plea (and Cooperation) Agreement to the
Court. The circumstances leading to Mr. Rolla's plea were
detailed in the agreement.
Mr. Rolla contracted for the removal of asbestos from a
manufacturing plant in Massachusetts, owned and operated by a
company of which he was an officer, without taking appropriate
steps to insure that the work would be performed in accordance
with federal requirements.
The removal did not conform to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency procedures in terms of labeling and containment.
Substantial asbestos remnants were left behind, no
decontamination units were utilized, and no air monitoring was
performed.
In August 2005, a similar arrangement was made over the
company's three structures in New York, notwithstanding prior
warnings by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) about the presence of asbestos therein.
The sentencing memorandum of Oct. 18, 2007, prepared by the U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of New York, recommended that
the court grant substantial leniency to the respondent for his
cooperation with the government in relation to criminal
prosecutions and his efforts to ensure that a full cleanup was
obtained.
On March 22, 2007, Mr. Rolla entered a plea of guilty to a one-
count Information charging him with conspiracy to violate the
Clean Air Act. He acknowledged that as a consequence of his
plea, he would likely be subject to investigation and
disciplinary proceedings.
Mr. Rolla was sentenced by Judge Hurd on Nov. 1, 2007, to five
years of probation on Count One of the Information, a US$100
special assessment, and a US$40,000 fine, due immediately.
It was accepted that Mr. Rolla was disbarred. His resignation
was accepted and directed to be filed.
Mario F. Rolla, Esq., of Worcester, Mass., represented himself.
Rita E. Adler, Esq., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Nancy B. Gabriel, Esq., of
counsel), represented the Grievance Committee for the 10th
Judicial District.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Cites 3,560 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 3,560 asbestos cases, at June 30, 2008, were
outstanding for which Standard Motor Products, Inc. was
responsible for any related liabilities, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2008.
At March 31, 2008, about 3,480 asbestos-related cases were
outstanding for which the Company was responsible for any
related liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)
In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it sold in
March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued
operation. The Company assumed future liabilities relating to
any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. The
Company agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims
filed on or after Sept. 1, 2001.
The Company's ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of
claims filed against it on or after Sept. 1, 2001 and the
amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof.
Since inception in September 2001 through June 30, 2008, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$6.5 million. In
September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage
for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims.
The Company has submitted various asbestos-related claims to the
insurance carrier for coverage under this agreement.
Headquartered in Long Island City, N.Y., Standard Motor
Products, Inc. manufactures and distributes replacement parts
for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has $22.4M June 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities
were US$22,434,000 as of June 30, 2008, compared with
US$22,651,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.
The Company's accrued asbestos liability was US$22,463,000 as of
March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)
Headquartered in Long Island City, N.Y., Standard Motor
Products, Inc. manufactures and distributes replacement parts
for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Gets 2,900 Claims in 1st Half
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received about 2,900 new asbestos-related claims during the six
months ended June 30, 2008, compared with 2,600 claims during
the six months ended June 30, 2007.
As reported in the 2007 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life
received about 7,200 asbestos-related claims in 2007.
Metropolitan Life received about 2,000 new asbestos-related
claims during the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared
with 1,600 claims during the three months ended March 31, 2007.
(Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008)
Metropolitan Life is and has been a defendant in asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek
both actual and punitive damages.
Metropolitan Life has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
Metropolitan Life's employees during the period from the 1920s
through about the 1950s and allege that Metropolitan Life
learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by
asbestos and improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks.
During 1998, Metropolitan Life paid US$878 million in premiums
for excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims. The
excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provide
for recovery of losses up to US$1.5 billion, which is in excess
of a US$400 million self-insured retention.
The Company's initial option to commute the excess insurance
policies for asbestos-related claims arises at the end of 2008.
Thereafter, the Company will have a commutation right every five
years. The excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims
are also subject to annual and per claim sublimits. Amounts
exceeding the sublimits were about US$16 million during 2007,
US$8 million during 2006, and US$0 during 2005.
Each asbestos-related policy contains an experience fund and a
reference fund that provide for payments to Metropolitan Life at
the commutation date if the reference fund is greater than zero
at commutation or pro rata reductions from time to time in the
loss reimbursements to Metropolitan Life if the cumulative
return on the reference fund is less than the return specified
in the experience fund.
The foregone loss reimbursements were about US$62.2 million with
respect to claims for the period of 2002 through 2007 and are
estimated, as of June 30, 2008, to be about US$100.2 million in
the aggregate, including future years.
Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc. provides insurance and
other financial services with operations throughout the United
States and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific. The Company offers life insurance, annuities,
automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other
financial services to individuals. The Company also offers group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products and
services to corporations and other institutions.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Parsons Action v. Reynolds Persists
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia
court and filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is
still stayed, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2008.
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va., the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and
punitive damages.
The class is brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.
The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.
The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.
Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.
Headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C., Reynolds American Inc.
manufactures cigarettes and tobacco. Its wholly owned
subsidiaries include its operating subsidiaries, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R. J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood
Company, LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC and
Rosswil LLC.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Skilled Healthcare Reports $5.34M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s long-term asbestos abatement
liability was US$5,343,000 as of June 30, 2008, compared with
US$5,252,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.
No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 5, 2008.
Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Skilled Healthcare
Group, Inc. operates long-term care facilities and provides
post-acute care services, with an emphasis on sub-acute
specialty medical care. The Company operates facilities in
California, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas,
including 75 skilled nursing facilities.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 105,700 Cases Ongoing v. EnPro at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., at June 30, 2008, faced about 105,700
asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 5, 2008.
At March 31, 2008, the Company faced about 105,900 open
asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008)
Certain of the Company's subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Company, are among a
large number of defendants in actions filed in various states by
plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos fibers.
Among the products at issue in these actions are industrial
sealing products, including gaskets and packing products.
Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed more than
900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments,
settlements and dismissals) and, together with their insurers,
have paid more than US$1.3 billion in settlements and judgments
and over US$400 million in fees and expenses.
Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims
of plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, about six
percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging lung or other
cancers, and about 90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs
alleging asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-malignant
impairment of the respiratory system.
Of about 105,700 open cases at June 30, 2008, the Company is
aware of about 10,000 (9.5 percent) that involve claimants
alleging mesothelioma, lung cancer or some other cancer.
The number of new actions filed against the Company's
subsidiaries in 2007 (5,200) was lower than the number filed in
2006 (7,700) and 2005 (15,300). The number filed against its
subsidiaries in each of those three years was much lower than
the number filed in the peak filing year, 2003, when 44,700 new
claims were filed.
The decline in new filings has been principally in non-malignant
claims; however, new filings of claims alleging mesothelioma,
lung and other cancers have declined modestly since 2005. 3,100
new claims were filed against the Company's subsidiaries in the
first half of 2008, about the same number as in the first half
of 2007.
The asbestos in products formerly sold by Garlock and Anchor was
encapsulated, which means the asbestos fibers were incorporated
into the products during the manufacturing process and sealed in
a binder. The products were also nonfriable, which means they
could not be crumbled by hand pressure.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which
began generally requiring warnings on asbestos-containing
products in 1972, has never required that a warning be placed on
products such as Garlock's gaskets. Garlock included one on all
of its asbestos-containing products beginning in 1978. Further,
gaskets like those previously manufactured and sold by Garlock
are one of the few asbestos-containing products still permitted
to be manufactured under regulations of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Nevertheless, Garlock discontinued all manufacture and
distribution of asbestos-containing products in the U.S. during
2000 and worldwide in mid-2001. From the mid-1980s until 2000,
U.S. sales of asbestos-containing industrial sealing products
were not a material part of Garlock's sales and were
predominantly to sophisticated purchasers such as the U.S. Navy
and large petrochemical facilities.
Garlock's product defenses have enabled it to be successful at
trial. Garlock won a defense verdict in the one case tried to
verdict in 2008, and in 13 of 26 cases tried to verdict in the
years 2004 through 2008.
In the successful jury trials, the juries determined that either
Garlock's products were not defective, that Garlock was not
negligent, or that the claimant was not exposed to Garlock's
products.
Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. deigns, develops,
manufactures, and markets engineered industrial products that
include sealing products, metal and metal-polymer bearings and
filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty,
medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating
engines.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Has $1.1M Collateral for Appeal Bonds
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., at June 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, had
US$1.1 million of asbestos-related cash collateral relating to
appeal bonds recorded as restricted cash on the Consolidated
Balance Sheets.
In some cases, appeals require the provision of security in the
form of appeal bonds, potentially in amounts greater than the
verdicts. The Company is required to provide cash collateral to
secure the full amount of the bonds, which can restrict the use
of a significant amount of the Company's cash for the periods of
such appeals.
During the first half of 2008, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,
a Company subsidiary, began six asbestos trials involving seven
plaintiffs. An Ohio jury returned a defense verdict in favor of
Garlock. In Pennsylvania, three lawsuits involving four
plaintiffs settled during trial before the jury reached a
verdict.
A lawsuit in California also settled during trial. In South
Carolina, Garlock obtained a dismissal in one case during trial
because there was insufficient evidence of exposure to Garlock
products.
In 2007, Garlock began nine trials involving twelve plaintiffs.
A Massachusetts jury returned a defense verdict in favor of
Garlock.
In a Kentucky case, the jury awarded the plaintiff US$145,000
against Garlock. Garlock is appealing this verdict. Four
lawsuits in Pennsylvania settled during trial before the juries
had reached a verdict. Garlock also settled cases during trial
in Louisiana, Maryland and Washington.
In 2006, Garlock began 10 trials involving 11 plaintiffs.
Garlock received jury verdicts in its favor in Oakland, Calif.;
Easton, Pa.; and Louisville, Ky. In Pennsylvania, three other
lawsuits involving four plaintiffs settled during trial before
the juries reached verdict. Garlock also settled cases in
Massachusetts, California and Texas during trial.
In a retrial of a Kentucky case, the jury awarded the plaintiff
US$900,000 against Garlock. The award was significantly less
than the US$1.75 million award against Garlock in the previous
trial, which Garlock successfully appealed.
In addition, Garlock obtained dismissals in two cases in
Philadelphia after the juries were selected but before the
trials began because there was insufficient evidence of exposure
to Garlock products.
Garlock has historically been successful in a majority of its
appeals. In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of
Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million
verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new
trial. The case subsequently settled.
On the other hand, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied
Garlock's appeal from a 2005 verdict in a mesothelioma case in
Baltimore, and Garlock paid that verdict, with post-judgment
interest, in the fourth quarter of 2006.
In a separate Baltimore case in the fourth quarter of 2006, the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Garlock's appeal from
another 2005 verdict. The subsequent appeal of that decision was
also denied and Garlock paid that verdict in the second quarter
of 2007.
In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned an US$800,000 verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2004, granting a new trial. At June 30, 2008,
two Garlock appeals were pending from adverse verdicts totaling
US$1 million.
Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. deigns, develops,
manufactures, and markets engineered industrial products that
include sealing products, metal and metal-polymer bearings and
filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty,
medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating
engines.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites $28.1M Settlement Commitments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's asbestos-related settlement
commitments in the first half of 2008 were US$28.1 million, down
from US$40 million in the first half of 2007.
Garlock is an EnPro Industries, Inc. subsidiary.
In 1999 and 2000, Garlock employed an aggressive settlement
strategy. The purpose of this strategy was to achieve a
permanent reduction in the number of overall asbestos claims
through the settlement of a large number of claims, including
some early-stage claims and some claims not yet filed as
lawsuits.
Due to this short-term aggressive settlement strategy and a
significant overall increase in claims filings, the settlement
amounts paid in those years and several subsequent years were
greater than the amounts paid in any year prior to 1999.
In 2001, Garlock resumed its historical settlement strategy and
focused on reducing settlement commitments. As a result, Garlock
reduced new settlement commitments from US$180 million in 2000
to US$94 million in 2001 and US$86 million in 2002.
New settlement commitments totaled US$84 million in 2006 and
US$76 million in 2007.
About US$15 million of the 2006 amount and about US$5 million of
the 2007 amount were committed in settlements to pay verdicts
that had been rendered in the years 2003 to 2005.
Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. deigns, develops,
manufactures, and markets engineered industrial products that
include sealing products, metal and metal-polymer bearings and
filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty,
medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating
engines.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Records $337.5M Coverage at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, at June 30, 2008, had available US$337.5
million of solvent insurance and trust coverage that the Company
said it believes will be available to cover future asbestos
claims and certain expense payments.
At June 30, 2008, Garlock classified US$47.2 million of
otherwise available insurance as insolvent. The Company said it
believes that Garlock will recover some of the insolvent
insurance over time. Garlock collected about US$1 million from
insolvent carriers in 2007.
Of the US$337.5 million of collectible insurance and trust
assets, the Company considers US$291.3 million (86 percent) to
be of high quality because (a) the insurance policies are
written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating
by S&P is investment grade (BBB) or better, and whose AM Best
rating is excellent (A-) or better, or (b) in the form of cash
or liquid investments held in insurance trusts resulting from
commutation agreements.
The Company considers US$46.2 million (13 percent) to be of
moderate quality because the insurance policies are written with
(a) other solvent U.S. carriers who are unrated or below
investment grade (US$40.4 million) or (b) with various London
market carriers (US$5.8 million).
Of the US$337.5 million, US$232.9 million is allocated to claims
that have been paid by Garlock and submitted to its insurance
companies for reimbursement and the remainder is allocated to
pending and estimated future claims.
Arrangements with Garlock's insurance carriers limit the amount
of insurance proceeds that Garlock is entitled to receive in any
one year. Based on these arrangements, the Company anticipates
that its remaining solvent insurance will be collected during
the period 2008?2018 in about the following annual amounts: 2008
through 2010 ? US$70 million per year (US$44.5 million was
collected in the first half of 2008); 2011 ? US$40 million; 2012
and 2013 ? US$25 million per year; 2014 through 2016 ? US$20
million per year; and 2017 and 2018 ? US$12 million per year.
During the fourth quarter of 2006, the Company reached an
agreement with a significant group of related U.S. insurers.
These insurers had withheld payments pending resolution of a
dispute. The agreement provides for the payment of the full
amount of the insurance policies (US$194 million) in various
annual payments to be made from 2007 through 2018.
Under the agreement, Garlock received US$22 million in 2007 and
US$20 million in the first half of 2008.
Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. deigns, develops,
manufactures, and markets engineered industrial products that
include sealing products, metal and metal-polymer bearings and
filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty,
medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating
engines.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Records $12.2M Cash Charge at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., in the second quarter of 2008, recorded
an asbestos-related pre-tax charge of US$12.2 million to reflect
net cash outlays of US$6.8 million for fees and expenses paid
during the quarter and a US$5.4 million non-cash charge
primarily to add an estimate of the liability for the second
quarter of 2018 to maintain a 10-year estimate.
In the second quarter of 2007, the Company recorded a pre-tax
charge of US$13.1 million to reflect cash outlays of US$6.8
million for fees and expenses incurred during the quarter and a
US$6.3 million non-cash charge primarily to add an estimate for
the second quarter of 2017 to maintain a 10-year estimate.
For the first half of 2008, the Company recorded a pre-tax
charge of US$24.3 million to reflect net cash outlays of US$12.4
million for fees and expenses and an US$11.9 million non-cash
charge primarily to add an estimate of the liability for the
first half of 2018.
In the first half of 2007, the Company recorded pre-tax charges
to income of US$26 million to reflect net cash outlays of
US$13.8 million for legal fees and expenses and a US$12.2
million non-cash charge primarily to add an estimate of the
liability for the first half of 2017.
Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. deigns, develops,
manufactures, and markets engineered industrial products that
include sealing products, metal and metal-polymer bearings and
filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty,
medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating
engines.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Liability Totals $502.9Mil at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s asbestos liability as of June 30, 2008
was US$502.9 million, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 5, 2008.
The US$502.9 million comprises of US$496.7 million, which is the
Company's estimate of a liability for the indemnity cost of
resolving asbestos claims for the next 10 years, plus US$6.2
million of accrued legal and other fees already incurred but not
yet paid.
The total liability as of June 30, 2008, included US$91.8
million classified as a current liability and US$411.1 million
classified as a noncurrent liability. The recorded amounts do
not include legal fees and expenses to be incurred in the
future.
As of June 30, 2008, the Company had remaining solvent insurance
and trust coverage of US$337.5 million which is reflected on its
balance sheet as a receivable (US$65.1 million classified in
current assets and US$272.4 classified in non-current assets)
and which it believes will be available for the payment of
asbestos-related claims.
Included in the receivable is US$232.9 million in insured claims
and expenses that the Company's subsidiaries have paid out in
excess of amounts recovered from insurance. These amounts are
recoverable under the terms of its insurance policies and have
been billed to the insurance carriers.
The remaining US$104.6 million will be available for pending and
future claims.
Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. deigns, develops,
manufactures, and markets engineered industrial products that
include sealing products, metal and metal-polymer bearings and
filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty,
medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating
engines.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $338.06M Liability at June 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$338,064,000 as of June 27, 2008, compared with US$347,332,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5,
2008.
The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$343,913,000 as
of March 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 20, 2008)
The Company's current accrued asbestos liability was
US$28,737,000 as of June 27, 2008, compared with US$28,901,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007.
The Company's current accrued asbestos liability was
US$28,820,000 as of March 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
June 20, 2008)
The Company's long-term asbestos insurance asset was
US$277,354,000 as of June 27, 2008, compared with
US$286,169,000.
The Company's current asbestos insurance asset was US$18,924,000
as of June 27, 2008, compared with US$19,059,000 as of Dec. 31,
2007.
The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$54,993,000 as of June 27, 2008, compared with US$44,664,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007.
Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation supplies
fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems
and specialty valves. The Company's products serve applications
in five strategic markets: commercial marine, oil and gas, power
generation, global navy and general industrial.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $3.97M Coverage Case Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation recorded US$3,970,000 for asbestos coverage
litigation expenses for the three months ended June 27, 2008,
compared with US$3,687,000 for the three months ended June 29,
2007.
For the three months ended June 27, 2008, asbestos liability and
defense income was US$715,000. For the three months ended
June 29, 2007, asbestos liability and defense costs were
US$558,000.
The Company recorded US$7,109,000 for asbestos coverage
litigation expenses for the six months ended June 27, 2008,
compared with US$5,931,000 for the six months ended June 29,
2008.
For the six months ended June 27, 2008, asbestos liability and
defense income was US$437,000. For the six months ended June 29,
2008, asbestos liability and defense income was US$1,747,000.
Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation supplies
fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems
and specialty valves. The Company's products serve applications
in five strategic markets: commercial marine, oil and gas, power
generation, global navy and general industrial.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 36,620 Claims Pending v. Colfax at June 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unresolved asbestos claims against Colfax Corporation number to
36,620 claims as of June 27, 2008, compared with 38,575 claims
as of June 29, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5,
2008.
Unresolved asbestos claims against the Company dropped to 37,632
for the three months ended March 28, 2008, from 41,919 claims
for the three months ended March 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, June 20, 2008)
As of June 27, 2008, the Company noted 2,390 claims filed and
3,324 claims resolved. As of June 29, 2008, the Company noted
5,130 claims filed and 16,575 claims resolved.
Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many
defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products
manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained
asbestos.
Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor
were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos.
The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained
asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of
the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy.
Of the pending claims, about 14,600 of such claims have been
brought in various state courts in Mississippi; about 3,000 of
such claims have been brought in the Supreme Court of New York
County, N.Y.; about 75 of such claims have been brought in the
Superior Court, Middlesex County, N.J.; and about 1,600 claims
have been filed in state courts in Michigan and the U.S.
District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan.
The remaining pending claims have been filed in state and
federal courts in Alabama, California, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Washington.
Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation supplies
fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems
and specialty valves. The Company's products serve applications
in five strategic markets: commercial marine, oil and gas, power
generation, global navy and general industrial.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Has $366.8M Liability Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation reserved US$366.8 million as of June 27, 2008
(US$376.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2007) for the probable and
reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost it believes
its subsidiaries will pay through the next 15 years.
The Company established asbestos reserves of US$372.7 million as
of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 20, 2008)
The Company has also established recoverables of US$296.3
million as of June 27, 2008 (US$305.2 million as of Dec. 31,
2007) for the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable
during the same time period.
Net of these recoverables, the Company's expected cash outlay on
a non-discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims
over the next 15 years was US$70.5 million as of June 27, 2008
and US$71 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.
Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation supplies
fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems
and specialty valves. The Company's products serve applications
in five strategic markets: commercial marine, oil and gas, power
generation, global navy and general industrial.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $39M Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$39 million as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$44 million
as of Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 5, 2008.
The Company recorded US$39 million in long-term asbestos-related
liabilities as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 9,
2008)
The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$14
million as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$11 million as of
Sept. 30, 2007.
The Company's long-term asbestos-related recoveries were US$31
million as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$32 million as of
Sept. 30, 2007.
The Company's current asbestos-related recoveries were US$7
million as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$8 million as of
Sept. 30, 2007.
Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 37T Claims Pending v. Maremont at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, faced
about 37,000 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2008
and Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5,
2008.
Maremont had about 37,000 pending asbestos-related claims at
March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008)
Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other
companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals
claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products.
Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases
where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have
established that a Maremont product caused their injuries.
Maremont's asbestos-related reserves were US$41 million as of
June 30, 2008, compared with US$43 million as of Sept. 30, 2007.
The corresponding asbestos-related recoveries were US$26 million
as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$28 million as of Sept. 30,
2007.
Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for
Claims Resolution (CCR) and shared with other CCR members in the
payment of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related
claims. The CCR handled the resolution and processing of
asbestos claims on behalf of its members until February 2001,
when it was reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared
settlements.
Upon dissolution of the CCR in February 2001, Maremont began
handling asbestos-related claims through its own defense counsel
and has taken a more aggressive defensive approach that involves
examining the merits of each asbestos-related claim.
Bates White LLC provided an estimate of the reasonably possible
range of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury
claims over the next three to four years of US$26 million to
US$35 million.
Maremont determined that as of March 31, 2008, the most likely
and probable liability for pending and future claims over the
next four years is US$35 million.
Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Cites $12M Rockwell Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. has recorded a US$12 million liability for
defense and indemnity costs associated with Rockwell Automation,
Inc. asbestos claims at June 30, 2008 and Sept. 30, 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2008.
The Company, along with many other companies, has been named as
a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
Automation, Inc. products many years ago.
Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the
time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor from
Rockwell in 1997. Currently there are thousands of claimants in
lawsuits that name the Company, together with many other
companies, as defendants.
Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these
claims with no payment to claimants.
The Company has recorded an insurance receivable related to
Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$12 million at
June 30, 2008 and Sept. 30, 2007.
Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Facing 500 Lawsuits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of June 30, 008, faced about 500
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 5, 2008.
The Company, at March 31, 2008, faced about 460 asbestos-related
lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)
As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company
has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other
corporate defendants.
All of the claims against the Company resolved to date have been
concluded before trial, either through dismissal or through
settlement with payments to the plaintiff that are not material
to the Company.
At June 30, 2008, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$20 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos.
Headquartered in Glen Allen, Va., MeadWestvaco Corporation
provides packaging solutions to many of the world's brands in
the food and beverage, media and entertainment, personal care,
home and garden, cosmetics, and healthcare industries. The
Company's other businesses include Consumer & Office Products
and Specialty Chemicals, and the Community Development and Land
Management Group.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $92.6M Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$92,655,000 as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$99,722,526
as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5,
2008.
The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$96,114,414 as
of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008)
The Company's current asbestos liability was US$20 million as of
June 30, 2008, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$79,540,557 as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$84,547,965
as of Dec. 31, 2007.
The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$81,884,914 as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
May 23, 2008)
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation
manufactures various metal products. Its forged and cast steel
rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum
industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes
Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco Faces 9,373 Pending Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, for the six months ended June 30,
2008, faced about 9,373 open asbestos-related claims, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2008.
For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company faced
about 8,836 open asbestos-related claims. (Class Action
Reporter, May 23, 2008)
For the six months ended June 30, 2008, gross settlement and
defense costs were US$8,450,000 and about 439 claims were
settled or dismissed.
For the three months ended March 31, 2008, about 217 claims were
settled or dismissed and the gross settlement and defense costs
were US$4,220,000. (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008)
Claims have been asserted against the Company alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components
historically used in some products of certain of the Company's
operating subsidiaries and of an inactive subsidiary and another
former division of the Company.
Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are
defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in
cases filed in various state and federal courts.
Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement ("Coverage Arrangement") with insurers responsible
for historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for
Asbestos Liability ("Paying Insurers").
Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept
financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies
and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity
allocation formulas, for a substantial majority of the pending
claims for Asbestos Liability.
The claims against the inactive subsidiary of the Company, about
300 as of June 30, 2008, are not included within the Coverage
Arrangement.
Insurance coverage for those claims is the subject of a
declaratory judgment action against the subsidiary, the Company
and two other primary insurers filed by the subsidiary's primary
insurer, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, on June 19, 2008 in
Utica, N.Y.
On July 30, 2008, the action was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York. The one claim filed
against the former division also is not included within the
Coverage Arrangement.
In the fourth quarter of 2007, one Paying Insurer responsible
for two years of primary coverage informed the Company that its
policies had exhausted. In the first quarter of 2008, another
Paying Insurer responsible for about two and a half years of
primary coverage informed the Company that two of its policies
exhausted.
In addition, the Paying Insurer responsible for some umbrella
insurance coverage also informed the Company that about one half
of its umbrella insurance coverage had exhausted at the end of
2007. As a result, the Company will bear a portion of the
defense and indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability.
The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgment that Howden
Buffalo, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering
Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical
products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former
subsidiary of the Company (Products).
The Company recorded reserves at Dec. 31, 2006 for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 of
US$140,015,000, of which about 60 percent was attributable to
settlement and defense costs for unasserted claims projected to
be filed through 2013. The reserve at June 30, 2008 was
US$112,655,000.
The Company recorded a receivable as at Dec. 31, 2006 of
US$114,548,000 (US$89,541,000 as of June 30, 2008 for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Company's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Coverage
Arrangement, and the probable payments and reimbursements
relating to the estimated indemnity and defense costs for
pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability claims.
The US$25,467,000 difference between insurance recoveries and
projected costs which was recorded in 2006 is not due to
exhaustion of the total product liability insurance for Asbestos
Liability.
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation
manufactures various metal products. Its forged and cast steel
rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum
industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes
Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $413.2Mil A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s property and casualty group's
asbestos and environmental reserves, at June 30, 2008, were
US$412.3 million, net of reinsurance recoverables, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2008.
During the second quarter of 2008, the Company completed the
previously announced comprehensive internal review of its A&E
exposures relating to the run-off operations of its property and
casualty group and its exposures related to former railroad and
manufacturing operations and sites.
As a result of the internal review, the Company recorded a US$12
million charge (net of reinsurance recoverables) to increase the
property and casualty group's A&E reserves.
At June 30, 2008, the Company's three year survival ratio was
9.5 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves and 9.0 times
paid losses for the total A&E reserves.
These ratios compare favorably with A.M. Best's most recent
report (published in 2007) on A&E survival ratios which were 8.6
for asbestos and 7.9 for total industry A&E reserves.
The 2007 A&E study resulted in a second quarter 2007 pretax
charge of US$44.2 million (net of reinsurance) to increase the
property and casualty group's A&E reserves.
Headquartered in Cincinnati, American Financial Group, Inc.
offers commercial property/casualty insurance focused on
specialties like workers' compensation, professional liability,
ocean and inland marine, and multiperil crop insurance. The
Company also provides surety coverage for contractors and risk
management services.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Continues to Face Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co., Inc. continues to face asbestos-related cases in
Mississippi and in Illinois.
The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of
asbestos cases in Mississippi, six asbestos cases in Illinois
and one asbestos case in California.
As of Aug. 5, 2008, the Company has been dismissed from a
majority of the cases in Mississippi, five of the cases in
Illinois and the one case in California. The Company has never
manufactured or processed asbestos.
The Company's exposure to asbestos involves products the Company
purchased from third parties. The Company has notified its
insurance carriers of these claims.
The Company has not made any provision in its financial
statements for the asbestos litigation.
Headquartered in Cudahy, Wis., Ladish Co., Inc. designs and
manufactures high-strength forged and cast metal components for
aerospace and industrial markets. Jet engine parts, missile
components, landing gear, helicopter rotors, and other aerospace
products generate some 80 percent of the Company's sales.
General industrial components account for the remaining 20
percent.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Tyco Intl Drop to 4,700 at June 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related liability cases against Tyco International Ltd.
and its subsidiaries drop to 4,700 cases as of June 27, 2008,
from 5,800 cases as of March 28, 2008.
The Company and some of its subsidiaries are named as defendants
in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials.
A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property.
Most of the cases involve product liability claims, based
principally on allegations of past distribution of heat-
resistant industrial products incorporating asbestos or the past
distribution of industrial valves that incorporated asbestos-
containing gaskets or packing. Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants.
The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos. In
the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims
were never substantiated and, as a result, have been dismissed
by the courts.
When appropriate, the Company settles claims. The Company has
experienced an increase in the number of lawsuits that have
proceeded to trial.
Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial in 2008, the
Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one case
returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million,
which included both compensatory and punitive damages.
The Company intends to appeal this verdict.
Headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda, Tyco International Ltd.
makes electrical and metal products (steel tubing, pipes,
cables) for commercial construction. Its flow control unit makes
valves and related products for water, wastewater, and the oil
and gas markets.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Has 25T Claims in Six States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairmont Supply Company, which distributes industrial supplied
and is a CONSOL Energy Inc. subsidiary, faces about 25,000
asbestos claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi and New Jersey.
Because a small percentage of products manufactured by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or
plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing
products supplied by Fairmont.
While Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in
certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products,
the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at
this time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named
as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these
claims under bankruptcy laws.
Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these
asbestos cases.
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2008 and the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007, payments by Fairmont with respect to
asbestos cases have not been material.
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, CONSOL Energy Inc. mines coal. The
Company has some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves, mainly in
northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and
produces about 65 million tons of coal annually. Customers
include electric utilities and steel mills. The Company also
explores for and produces natural gas.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $18.27M June 27 Net Gain
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s net asbestos-related gain was
US$18,275,000 for the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2008,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2008.
For the fiscal six months ended June 27, 2008, the Company's net
asbestos-related gain was US$32,463,000.
In the first fiscal six months of 2008, the Company's
subsidiaries reached agreements to settle their disputed
asbestos-related insurance coverage with two insurers.
As a result of these settlements, the Company's recorded gains
of US$20 million in the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2008
(US$35.9 million in the fiscal six months ended June 27, 2008),
which are partially offset by charges of US$1.7 million in the
fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2008 (US$3.4 million in the fiscal
six months ended June 27, 2008) on the revaluation of its
asbestos liability and related asset resulting from its rolling
15-year asbestos liability estimate.
The Company said its net income in the first quarter of 2008 was
aided by a net asbestos-related gain of US$14,188,000. (Class
Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)
With its U.S. Headquarters in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd.
is an engineering and construction contractor and power
equipment supplier. The Company employs over 14,000
professionals. The Engineering & Construction Group designs and
constructs processing facilities for the upstream oil and gas,
LNG and gas-to-liquids, refining, chemicals and petrochemicals,
power, environmental, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and
healthcare industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Ltd. Has $350.7Mil Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$350,672,000 as of June 27, 2008, compared with US$376,803,000
as of Dec. 28, 2007.
The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$359,429,000 as of March 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
May 16, 2008)
The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable was US$304,977,000 as of June 27, 2008, compared with
US$324,588,000.
The Company's long-term asbestos insurance recovery receivable
was US$307,053,000 as of March 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
May 16, 2008)
Some of the Company's U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are defendants
in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal
claims pending in the United States and United Kingdom.
Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work allegedly performed by the Company's subsidiaries during
the 1970s and earlier.
With its U.S. Headquarters in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd.
is an engineering and construction contractor and power
equipment supplier. The Company employs over 14,000
professionals. The Engineering & Construction Group designs and
constructs processing facilities for the upstream oil and gas,
LNG and gas-to-liquids, refining, chemicals and petrochemicals,
power, environmental, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and
healthcare industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 130,740 Claims in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United States faced
130,740 asbestos claims for the fiscal quarter ended June 27,
2008, compared with 133,580 claims for the fiscal quarter ended
June 29, 2007.
The Company's subsidiaries in the U.S. faced 130,810 asbestos
claims for the three months ended March 28, 2008, compared with
135,260 claims for the three months ended March 30, 2007. (Class
Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)
In the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2008, the Company noted
1,800 claims filed in the U.S. and 1,870 claims resolved in the
U.S. In the fiscal quarter ended June 29, 2007, the Company
noted 1,500 claims filed in the U.S. and 3,180 claims resolved
in the U.S.
Total asbestos-related assets were US$314.5 million as of
June 27, 2008 and US$326.2 million as of Dec. 28, 2007.
Total asbestos-related liabilities were US$370.4 million as of
June 27, 2008 and US$403.3 million as of Dec. 28, 2007.
In the fiscal fourth quarter of 2007, the Company increased its
liability for asbestos indemnity and defense costs through
fiscal year-end 2022 to US$403.3 million. In connection with
updating its estimated asbestos liability and related asset, the
Company recorded a charge of US$7.4 million in the fiscal fourth
quarter of 2007.
The Company's estimated asbestos liability increased during the
fiscal six months ended June 27, 2008 by US$4.3 million, which
represents the rolling 15-year asbestos-related liability
estimate, and was reduced by payments amounting to about US$37.2
million.
The amount paid on asbestos litigation, defense and case
resolution was US$17.2 million for the fiscal quarter ended
June 27, 2008 (US$21.3 million for the fiscal quarter ended
June 29, 2007) and US$37.2 million for the fiscal six months
ended June 27, 2008 (US$44.9 million for the fiscal six months
ended June 29, 2007).
In fiscal year 2008, proceeds from settlements with the
Company's insurers exceeded payments made by US$16.1 million in
the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2008 and US$11.2 million in
the fiscal six months ended June 27, 2008.
Through June 27, 2008, total cumulative indemnity costs paid
were about US$642.8 million and total cumulative defense costs
paid were about US$268.1 million.
As of June 27, 2008, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated liability of US$141.9 million relating
to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated
liability of US$228.5 million relating to future unasserted
claims through the fiscal second quarter of 2023.
With its U.S. Headquarters in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd.
is an engineering and construction contractor and power
equipment supplier. The Company employs over 14,000
professionals. The Engineering & Construction Group designs and
constructs processing facilities for the upstream oil and gas,
LNG and gas-to-liquids, refining, chemicals and petrochemicals,
power, environmental, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and
healthcare industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $23.2M for N.Y. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd., as of June 27, 2008, estimated the value of
its unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing
litigation in New York state court with its subsidiaries'
insurers at US$23.2 million.
The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage
available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation
of the coverage among the subsidiaries' various insurers and its
subsidiaries as self-insurers.
The Company, as of March 28, 2008, estimated the value of its
unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing litigation
in New York state court with its subsidiaries' insurers at
US$23.1 million. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)
Over the last several years, certain of the Company's
subsidiaries have entered into settlement agreements calling for
insurers to make lump-sum payments, as well as payments over
time, for use by its subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related
indemnity and defense costs and, in certain cases, for
reimbursement for portions of out-of-pocket costs previously
incurred.
In fiscal year 2007, the subsidiaries reached agreements to
settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance coverage with
four additional insurers. As a result of these settlements, the
Company increased its asbestos-related insurance asset and
recorded a gain of US$13.5 million in the second half of fiscal
year 2007.
In the fiscal six months ended June 27, 2008, the Company's
subsidiaries reached agreements to settle their disputed
asbestos-related insurance coverage with two additional
insurers.
In fiscal year 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of
a New York state trial court decision that previously had held
that New York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in the
coverage litigation with its subsidiaries' insurers, and as a
result, the Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a
gain of US$19.5 million.
On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries' insurers were granted
permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision to the
New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. On
Oct. 11, 2007, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the
appellate court decision in the Company's favor.
The Company had net cash inflows of US$11.2 million as a result
of insurance settlement proceeds in excess of the asbestos
liability indemnity payments and defense costs during the fiscal
six months ended June 27, 2008.
The Company expects to have net cash inflows of US$14.9 million
as a result of insurance settlement proceeds in excess of the
asbestos liability indemnity and defense costs for the full 12
months of fiscal year 2008.
With its U.S. Headquarters in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd.
is an engineering and construction contractor and power
equipment supplier. The Company employs over 14,000
professionals. The Engineering & Construction Group designs and
constructs processing facilities for the upstream oil and gas,
LNG and gas-to-liquids, refining, chemicals and petrochemicals,
power, environmental, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and
healthcare industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Face 344 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United
Kingdom face 344 open asbestos-related claims as of June 27,
2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2008.
To date, 881 claims have been brought against the Company's U.K.
subsidiaries.
The Company's subsidiaries in the U.K. faced 346 open asbestos
claims as of March 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 16,
2008)
As of June 27, 2008, the Company had recorded total liabilities
of US$49.3 million comprised of an estimated liability relating
to open (outstanding) claims of US$8.5 million and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims through the
fiscal second quarter of 2023 of US$40.8 million.
Of the total, US$3 million was recorded in accrued expenses and
US$46.3 million was recorded in asbestos-related liability on
the condensed consolidated balance sheet.
An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K.
asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$3 million was
recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and US$46.3
million was recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.
The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a
compensable injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its
liability assessment.
If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total asbestos
liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be about
US$66.9 million.
With its U.S. Headquarters in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd.
is an engineering and construction contractor and power
equipment supplier. The Company employs over 14,000
professionals. The Engineering & Construction Group designs and
constructs processing facilities for the upstream oil and gas,
LNG and gas-to-liquids, refining, chemicals and petrochemicals,
power, environmental, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and
healthcare industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Has $672M June 30 Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation's liability recorded for asbestos-
related matters was US$672 million at June 30, 2008, US$637
million at Dec. 31, 2007, and US$538 million at June 30, 2007.
The Company's liability for asbestos-related matters was US$628
million as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 23,
2008)
The Company has been subject to asbestos-related claims in
recent years. While it has resolved many of the asbestos-related
cases over the years and continue to do so for strategic
litigation reasons such as avoiding defense costs and possible
exposure to excessive verdicts, the Company said it believes
that a small proportion of the claimants has or will develop any
asbestos-related physical impairment.
A small percentage of the claims pending against the Company
allege causation of a disease associated with asbestos exposure.
The Company has increased its reserve by US$349 million in the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007 to reflect a reasonable estimate of
its probable liability for pending and future asbestos-related
claims projected to be asserted over the next 10 years,
including legal defense costs.
The reserve balance between June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2007
increased primarily as a result of the US$349 million increase
in the reserve for probable pending and future asbestos claims,
which was partially offset by a reduction in the reserve for
existing claims of US$251 million resulting from fewer claims
and lower expenses than previously estimated.
Headquartered in Detroit, General Motors Corporation produces
and markets cars and trucks. The Company operates in two
businesses, consisting of Automotive and Financing and Insurance
Operations. It develops, manufactures and market vehicless
worldwide through its four automotive segments, which consist of
GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East,
and GM Asia Pacific.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. Mallinckrodt Inc. Rise to 10,739
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos related cases against Covidien Ltd.'s subsidiary,
Mallinckrodt Inc., rose to about 10,739 as of June 27, 2008 from
10,607 cases as of March 28, 2008.
Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.
Majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
incorporating asbestos.
A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on
Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically names dozens of
corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt.
The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal
injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to
products containing asbestos.
The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos. In the
Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims were
never substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts.
The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court
proceeding related to asbestos claims. When appropriate, the
Company settles claims. However, amounts paid to settle and
defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial.
Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Covidien Ltd. supplies
health care providers around the world with generic
pharmaceuticals and disposable medical products to diagnostic
imaging contrast agents and surgical devices. The Company has
operations in nearly 60 countries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stehman's Case Still Pending v. Ballantyne
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. continues to face an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by Larry C. Stehman and Leila Stehman in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco.
Filed Dec. 8, 2006, the case is styled Larry C. Stehman and
Leila Stehman v. Asbestos Corporation, Limited and Ballantyne of
Omaha, Inc. individually and as successor in interest to Strong
International, Strong Electric Corporation and Century Projector
Corporation, et al.
The plaintiffs have made no monetary demand upon the Company,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 11, 2008.
Headquartered in Omaha, Nebr., Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries (Strong Westrex, Inc., Strong
Technical Services, Inc., and Strong Digital Systems, Inc.,)
design, develop, manufacture, service and distribute theater and
lighting systems. The Company's products are distributed to
movie exhibition companies, sports arenas, auditoriums,
amusement parks and special venues.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Still Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boss Holdings, Inc. continues to face several lawsuits alleging
past exposure to asbestos contained in gloves sold by one of its
predecessors-in-interest.
These actions are being defended by one or more of the Company's
products liability insurers.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 12, 2008.
Headquartered in Kewanee, Ill., Boss Holdings, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Boss Manufacturing Company, imports and markets
gloves and protective wear sold through mass merchandisers,
hardware stores, and other retailers in the United States and
Canada. The Company's gloves and protective gear account for
about 70 percent of sales.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Penns Win $16M Verdict in Suit v. Kerr Corp
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weitz & Luxenberg P.C., on June 27, 2008, achieved a US$16.25
million verdict in an asbestos lawsuit on behalf of 71-year-old
Marvin Penn and his wife, Josephine Penn, according to a Weitz &
Luxenberg press release dated Aug. 11, 2008.
The jury attributed 20 percent of the liability to the sole
defendant at trial, Kerr Corp., a dental supply company. The
case is believed to be the first successful asbestos verdict
against that type of defendant.
Douglas D. von Oiste, Esq., Weitz & Luxenberg trial team
attorney and lead counsel said, "The jury believed Mr. Penn and
did not believe Kerr's defense that the product it distributed
did not release harmful asbestos dust, and that Kerr could not
have known at the time that it was dangerous."
Mr. Penn, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma, was a mail
carrier from 1963 to 1999, though, in considering a career
change, attended dental technician school in the late 1960s. It
was there that he was exposed to asbestos while making castings
by carving wax replicas of teeth using asbestos-containing
dental tape.
The complex case (Index no. 105637/07, New York Supreme Court,
Manhattan) involved a three-week trial featuring state-of the-
art medical experts, which culminated in the verdict against
Kerr.
The jury attributed 20 percent of liability to another dental
supply manufacturer, Dentsply Corp., f/k/a Randsom & Randolf,
which settled before the verdict.
The trial also addressed Mr. Penn's other exposures to asbestos.
He testified that he worked in a post office across from the
former location of the World Trade Center while it was being
sprayed with asbestos. The spray was found to be 40 percent
liable.
Additionally, Todd Shipyards Corporation was found 20 percent
liable given that Mr. Penn's father worked there as a
steamfitter. Family members of workers exposed to asbestos are
at risk due to the asbestos dust brought into the home on the
shoes, clothing, skin, and hair of workers.
The Weitz & Luxenberg trial team included Douglas D. von Oiste,
Esq., and asbestos trial attorney James C. Long, Jr., Esq. The
judge was the Honorable Marilyn G. Diamond.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY School Worker Convicted for AHERA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benny Gladding, a former employee of the Massena Central School
District in New York, was sentenced to probation after pleading
guilty to violations of the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act, Asbestos.com reports.
Mr. Gladding pleaded guilty to providing false information to a
federal agent, and to preparing false reports about asbestos in
school buildings.
Thousands of schools were built using asbestos-containing
construction materials due to the extremely durable and fire-
resistant nature of asbestos fibers.
Created in 1986, the AHERA provides guidelines that require
schools to create and maintain asbestos management plans. In
addition, schools must be inspected every three years, and
asbestos management plans must be available for public review by
staff and parents.
Mr. Gladding was sentenced as a result of several events that
occurred during and before 2007. On one occasion, he revealed to
federal agents that he had never removed asbestos-containing
materials from any of the schools in the Massena Central School
District.
Mr. Gladding also admitted that a past report he prepared about
the condition of asbestos at Jefferson Elementary School was
inaccurate.
Mr. Gladding has been sentenced to two years probation for each
of the counts, and the probationary sentences are to be served
concurrently. In addition, he must complete 100 hours of
community service.
As part of his plea, Mr. Gladding has agreed to resign from his
position as buildings and grounds superintendent for the Massena
Central School District.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hostert Suit Filed v. 79 Companies in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Hostert, an Illinois local suffering from mesothelioma,
has filed an asbestos lawsuit against 79 defendant corporations
in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., on July 17, 2008, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.
Defendants in the case include Bondex International Inc, CBS
Corporation, Chrysler LLC, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal
Trust, Ford Motor Company, General Electric Company, General
Motors Corporation, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
Honeywell International Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited,
International Paper Company, John Crane Inc., MetLife Inc.,
Philips Electronics North America Corporation, and Trane U.S.
Inc.
Mr. Hostert, who was employed as a machine operator, drill press
operator, truck driver and mechanic from 1952 through 1999 at
various locations throughout Illinois, claims his disease was
wrongfully caused.
During the course of his employment and during home and
automotive repairs, Mr. Hostert claims he was exposed to and
inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers
emanating from certain products he was working with and around.
Mr. Hostert claims the defendants knew or should have known that
the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic,
poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of
people. He said he first became aware that he suffered from
mesothelioma in June 2008.
Mr. Hostert alleges that the defendants included asbestos in
their products even when adequate substitutes were available and
failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the
safe methods of working with and around asbestos.
Mr. Hostert also claims that the defendants failed to require
and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or
prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.
As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Hostert claims he was
exposed to fibers containing asbestos. He developed a disease
caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him,
the complaint states. He seeks damages to help pay for the cost
of his treatment.
The complaint states that Mr. Hostert also suffers "great
physical pain and mental anguish, and also will be hindered and
prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment, thereby
losing large sums of money."
Mr. Hostert 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. Hostert alleges that as a result of each defendant breaching
its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents
and information it has been prejudiced and impaired in proving
claims against all potential parties.
Mr. Hostert seeks at least US$400,000 in damages for negligence,
willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of
evidence among other allegations.
Mr. Hostert is represented by Shane Hampton, Esq., and Paul Dix,
Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.
The case has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Handyman's Widow Gets GBP118T Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pauline Richardson, the widow of Anthony Richardson, a former
Royal Lytham handyman, has been awarded GBP118,610 asbestos
compensation by High Court Judge Mrs Justice Swift, The Gazette
reports.
Mr. Richardson worked as a live-in maintenance man at the Royal
Lytham and St Annes Golf Club, in Lytham St Annes, England, from
1987 until 2002. He died in February 2005 of mesothelioma at the
age of 67.
Justice Swift ruled that Mr. Richardson had been exposed to the
asbestos during his employment with a Lytham-based plumbing and
heating engineering firm.
Mrs. Richardson, testified at the High Court, along with her son
Paul, and her evidence was described as "patently honest" by
Justice Swift.
Although Mrs. Richardson claimed her husband had been exposed to
asbestos in the golf club's boiler rooms, and during
installation of a new heating system in the 1980s, Justice Swift
said experts were agreed that could not have caused the
mesothelioma that killed him.
Instead, Justice Swift ruled the disease was the terrible legacy
of his work, between 1975 and 1987, as a plumber and heating
engineer, for the small Lytham-based firm, GF Russell, now
Russells on Saltcotes Road.
During the two-day hearing, GF Russell denied liability but
Justice Swift ruled, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr.
Richardson had "frequently encountered asbestos-based materials"
in airing cupboards and bath panels while working for the firm.
The firm, which employs six people, was ordered to pay Mrs.
Richardson the GBP118,610 compensation for Mr. Richardson's
death. The firm now also faces substantial legal costs bills.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Court Awards Payout to Dobson's Family
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed High Court Judge has awarded the family of Margaret
Dobson, a County Luxdon Laundry Limited employee from 1975 to
1995, an undisclosed asbestos-related five-figure judgment,
Mesothelioma reports.
Mrs. Dobson died in February 2005, nearly five months after she
was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Her former employer
lost the lawsuit and is responsible for the payout to Mrs.
Dobson's family.
Mrs. Dobson was never aware that she had worked with asbestos
until inquiries with her former colleagues revealed that two of
the company's offices where she had worked contained asbestos-
insulated piping. The suit showed that she likely became exposed
to the hazardous substance's fibers while performing maintenance
work on the pipes.
The family's lawyers said a key factor that led to the decision
in their favor was the significant number of witnesses who were
able to provide detailed information about Mrs. Dobson's job
responsibilities at the company.
In the end, the High Court ruled that County Luxdon Laundry was
responsible for causing Mrs. Dobson's development of
mesothelioma.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FEMA Says No Cleanup Funds for Chafee, Ark.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has
denied the residents of Chafee, Ark., asbestos cleanup funds,
Asbestos.com reports.
The FEMA has said that the town does not fall under "federal
disaster area" status. In the area, fires broke out and
destroyed more than 150 World War II structures, all of which
are suggested to contain asbestos materials.
FEMA's decision has prevented the town from receiving federal
funds that would greatly finance the cleanup operations,
including those concerning asbestos abatement.
In total, the entire cleanup project is expected to cost
US$4.6 million, and resident officials are worried about being
forced to pay the costs themselves. If the town is responsible
for the cleanup, it is likely that future development plans
within the community will be set back several years.
The funds are being held from the city partly because of tests
performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which
indicated that the asbestos levels are too low to qualify for
the EPA's Superfund designation.
However, other tests taken by the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality found asbestos contamination in several
areas that were much higher than original EPA testing.
This has local citizens fearing for their health and for the
future of their community. Because of these findings, the EPA
has agreed to return in 30 days for additional testing.
Following the fire, asbestos fibers can be released into the
air.
Currently, the EPA has plans to alter the way it measures the
risks of asbestos. As of now, six types of asbestos are being
regulated by the government, and the new regulations suggested
by the EPA will change how the toxicity of those types are
defined.
Public health authorities are against the EPA's proposals and
claim the changes are for political reasons and not to protect
public health.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LCH Contracts to Appeal GBP70,000 Penalty
--------------------------------------------------------------
LCH Contracts Ltd. is set to appeal part of a GBP70,000 penalty
it incurred for exposing employees to asbestos, Safety Media
reports.
LCH, who was hired by R Maskell Ltd. to remove the asbestos once
they realized the potentially deadly substance was present, was
fined GBP50,000 for failing to reduce the spread of asbestos to
those working there and GBP20,000 for failing to stick to its
designated plan when carrying out the removal. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 8, 2008)
Managing director of the company, Lee Hipgrave, told the Echo he
ploughed nearly GBP100,000 of his own money into defending the
company and claims it did everything to prevent the workforce
being at risk from inhalation.
According to Mr. Hipgrave, his employees secured the harmful
substance but another person came into the building and
interfered with the bags.
As a result, the inspection that followed on the Monday
discovered bags of asbestos that posed a risk to the health of
anybody near to them, Mr. Hipgrave added.
According to the Health and Safety Executive, asbestos is the
single biggest cause of work-related deaths in the United
Kingdom.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMH Denies Presence of Asbestos in Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of the Princess Margaret Hospital in Nassau, Bahamas,
on Aug. 8, 2008, dismissed claims about the presence of asbestos
in the basement or any other area of the government-run health
facility, The Bahama Journal reports.
On Aug. 8, 2008, a local daily carried a story claiming that
asbestos might be present in some places at PMH. The hospital
answered with a press statement on the matter, in which Chief
Hospital Administrator Coralie Adderley explained that extensive
asbestos testing was carried out in various areas of the
Hospital from 1996 to 2002.
Mrs. Adderley said those tests were specifically carried out in
the kitchen, medical records office and the basements. She
further explained that in October 2002, samples of those tests
were collected by Dr. Barry Iseard, Science Director of
Environmental Projects Company Limited, based in Freeport, Grand
Bahama.
Mrs. Adderley said Dr. Iseard tested the samples at Hygeia
Laboratories Inc, a testing and evaluation laboratory in Miami,
Fla., testing specifically for asbestos using polarized light
microscopy.
Mrs. Adderley said, "No asbestos was detected in any of the
samples. The fibrous components consisted of cellulose and
fiberglass, a common insulation material."
Mrs. Adderley noted further that there have been no significant
changes to the structure of the areas tested since 2002 and
therefore the findings of the previous tests stand.
The statement made no mention of further testing in the wake of
the claim. The claims about asbestos came on the heels of a
recent announcement by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham that some
of the proceeds from the privatization of the Bahamas
Telecommunications Company would be used to construct a new,
state-of the-art hospital in the capital.
Early in the week, Dr. Hubert Minnis and officials from the
Public Hospitals scoured the island for a site to construct a
new hospital.
Prime Minister Ingraham acknowledged that PMH cannot adequately
meet the nation's healthcare needs. He insisted that building a
new, state-of-the-art hospital is a priority of his government.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MassDEP Imposes $50,412 Penalty on Peltier
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
slapped Robert E. Peltier with a US$50,412.50 penalty for
allegedly tearing down a building at the end of Sutton Lane
without first taking steps to protect workers and the public
from asbestos fibers in the siding, the Worcester Telegram &
Gazette reports.
The penalty, assessed in May 2008 but announced on Aug. 8, 2008,
was levied against Mr. Peltier, who is trustee of T.C.B. Realty
Trust No. 1. The trust owns buildings at 41 Sutton Lane,
including one that was demolished in May 2006, according to the
state.
MassDEP spokesman Edmund Coletta said, "The laws are very
specific that if you have asbestos-containing materials in a
building, in this case in the shingles, you have to handle them
with care, because asbestos is a cancer-causing material."
Mr. Coletta added, "The shingles are broken up by demolition or
being dropped on the ground and put asbestos fibers into the
ambient air around the site. The workers could breathe them in,
and they could travel from the site as well and affect others."
State asbestos regulations require any building materials
containing the carcinogen to be wetted and carefully removed in
a sealed area in which the air is filtered. Once removed, they
must be sealed in bags and labeled.
According to tax records, the city placed a tax lien on the
property several years ago and eventually moved to take it for
unpaid taxes in Land Court, but the back taxes were paid in
February 2008, and the city never owned the property.
The DEP was alerted to the demolition by an anonymous tip, Mr.
Coletta said. State inspectors dispatched to investigate the tip
saw workers hired by the trust tearing down a building without
taking precautions to keep the asbestos from becoming airborne,
he said.
The DEP said the trust also violated state asbestos regulations
by failing to notify the agency of the demolition, failing to
remove asbestos materials prior to demolition, failing to seal
the work area, failing to filter the air in the work area and
failing to properly handle asbestos materials.
The state said asbestos-containing materials also were found
buried on the property.
Mr. Coletta said that state inspectors halted the work and
ordered the trust to hire a licensed asbestos contractor to
correct the problems. He added that the case has not been closed
yet and efforts to negotiate a settlement with the trust so far
have been unsuccessful.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Settlement Reached in California Water Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior County of Los Angeles approved a confidential
asbestos settlement between California Water Service Group, a
Plaintiff and his heirs, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug.
6, 2008.
The settlement must be approved by the Court. A hearing was
scheduled for May 5, 2008. The settlement will be paid for by
the Company's contractors and its insurance policy carriers.
(Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)
The settlement was paid for by the Company's contractor's and
its insurance policy carriers.
The Company and a number of co-defendants were served on
Oct. 26, 2006, with a complaint (Case No. BC360406) for personal
injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos.
The Plaintiff claimed to have worked for three of the Company's
contractors on pipeline projects during the period 1958-1999,
including Palos Verdes Water Company, a water utility the
Company acquired in 1970.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Company and other defendants were
responsible for his asbestos-related injuries.
Headquartered in San Jose, Calif., California Water Service
Group is a holding company that provides water utility and other
related services in California, Washington, New Mexico and
Hawaii through its wholly-owned subsidiaries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. CenterPoint
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. or its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due
to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 6, 2008.
Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities
previously owned by the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company
anticipates that additional claims like those received may be
asserted in the future.
In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known
as NRG Texas LP (NRG).
Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to Texas Genco
LLC, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by
Texas Genco LLC and its successor.
However, the Company has agreed to continue to defend those
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
the Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such
defense from the purchaser.
Headquartered in Houston, CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public
utility holding company. The Company's operating subsidiaries
own and operate electric transmission and distribution
facilities, natural gas distribution facilities, interstate
pipelines and natural gas gathering, processing and treating
facilities.
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F.
Dy, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *