/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090717.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, July 17, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 140
Headlines
ADAMS GOLF: Oct. 13 Trial Set for Consolidated Securities Suit
ALPHA NATURAL: Deal in Foundation Coal Stockholders' Suit Inked
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Wash.
AMERICA SERVICE: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Tenn.
AROTECH CORP: N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Discovery Phase
BOEING CO: Former Workers Seek to Expand Age Bias Case in Kansas
BRASIL TELECOM: Defending Suits Over Customer Service Centers
BRASIL TELECOM: Defends Suits Seeking to Suspend PIS/COFINS Tax
BRASIL TELECOM: Lawsuits Over Subscription Fees Remain Pending
COMMONWEALTH OF ANTIGUA: AG Says Government to Fight Texas Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Judge Grants Dismissal Bid in ERISA Lawsuit
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Settlement of "Graden" Claims Pending Approval
DIRECTV INC: California Court Allows Fee Litigation to Proceed
DRUG MANUFACTURERS: Family of Alberta Man Sues Over Pain Patch
FIRST HEALTH: Ill. Judge Resets Fairness Hearing for "Coy" Deal
FOUNDATION COAL: Inks Settlement in Md. Stockholder Suit in July
MARICOPA COUNTY: Ariz. Court Allows Suit v. Sheriff to Proceed
MICHIGAN: Settles Female Inmates' Sexual Assault Suit For $100M
NASHUA CORP: Settles N.H. Lawsuit Over Cenveo Merger Agreement
REGIONS FIN'L: Suits by Funds Investors & Shareholders Pending
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Labor-Related Suit Still in Discovery Stage
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Motion to Add Individuals Into Deal Pending
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Faces Mich. Suit Over Alleged Contamination
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Budeprion XL
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Pending in Wisconsin
TRONOX INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
URS CORP: Unit Still Defends Suits on New Orleans Levee Failure
WHITNEY INFORMATION: Bid to Nix "Friedman" Suit Remains Pending
WHITNEY INFORMATION: Canadian Unit Defends Investments Lawsuit
New Securities Fraud Cases
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Roy Jacobs Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Charles H. Johnson Announces Lawsuit Filing
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No New Development in Chase Suit at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sterlite USA Agrees to Represent Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shaw Action Filed on June 22 in Ohio County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10 Actions Filed in Ill. During June 15-19
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fife Council Fined GBP10T for Safety Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at Kansas City's Citadel Plaza
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gallien Action Filed v. 37 Firms on June 26
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DNR Seeks to Settle Asbestos Case for $70T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bill to Ban Hazard Filed in Phil. Congress
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hastings Ex-Boxer's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K.'s Prime Minister "Accused of Betrayal"
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs Ruling in John Crane Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Affirms Ruling in Dunkel Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Denies Will's Testimony Petition
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Strike Granted in Medeiros Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Upholds Ruling in Lunsford Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Affirmed in Nelson Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs Board's Ruling in Gonzales
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court OKs Dismissals of Wurth & Carman
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Werts Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Denies Bid in Travelers Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Charges v. Nova Partners Dismissed July 13
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Broughal Middle School Slated for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WWU Building Closed July 13 Due to Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pier 70 in San Francisco in Need of Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former Staunton School Slated for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenant to Sue Southwark Council Over Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Unite Sees Claims Upheld by U.K. Government
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: O'Hern Family Exposed to Asbestos in Minn.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Junks Review Bid in Crane Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plan for TH Agriculture Confirmed on May 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Reduces Reserve by $18M During 2nd-Qtr.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 18 Cases Filed in Ill. From June 29-July 3
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harrah's Sued for Exposing Worker to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cedar Falls Council to Pay $24T for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former Mental Hospital in D.C. Has Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DuBose Questions Plaintiff at Mock Hearing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: East London Marina Worker Gets Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stone to Hear Hardie Tax Case in Sept. 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chaddesden Students Reassured Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Milestone Charged for SUNY Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Men Probed on Illegal Dumping in Essex
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Petition Granted in Valdez Action in Calif.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Dismissal Denied in Lluerma
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling OK'd in Advanced Environmental
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DuPont Motion in Whisnant Case Filed July 8
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pederson Funeral Cited for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyers Seek to Stop Dismissal of MDL Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cornford Settles Breaches w/ Wisconsin DOJ
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jammed Asbestos Docket Prioritized Over PPO
*********
ADAMS GOLF: Oct. 13 Trial Set for Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has set
trial in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit
against Adams Golf, Inc. for Oct. 13, 2009.
Beginning June 1999, the first of seven class-action complaints
was filed against the company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the three underwriters of its
initial public offering.
The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection
with the company's IPO.
In particular, the complaints alleged that its prospectus, which
became effective Jul. 9, 1998, was materially false and
misleading in at least two areas. The plaintiffs alleged that
the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized distribution
of the company's products (gray market sales) threatened the
company's long-term profits. They also assert that the
prospectus failed to disclose that the golf equipment industry
suffered from an oversupply of inventory at the retail level,
which had an adverse impact on sales.
An operative complaint was filed on Jan. 24, 2006, and discovery
closed on Aug. 11, 2006. In November 2006, all summary-judgment
briefing was completed. On Dec. 13, 2006, the company learned
that the judge from the U.S. District Court of the District of
Delaware under whom the case was assigned before was elevated to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. All proceedings
had been postponed.
On Feb. 7, 2008, the company was notified that the case has been
reassigned to Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet. There has been no
scheduling conference set yet, and there is no trial date set at
this time.
The parties participated in a mediation on April 8, 2008, but no
resolution has been reached at this time. The Court heard oral
argument on Defendant's summary-judgment motions on Feb. 20,
2009. A hearing on the parties' Daubert motions has been set
for May 29, 2009. The Court set a trial date of Oct. 13, 2009,
according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.
The suit is "Shockley, et al. v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, Judge Kent A. Jordan presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Carmella P. Keener, Esq. (CKeener@rmgglaw.com)
Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess
Citizens Bank Center
Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070
Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
Phone: 302-656-4433
Representing the defendants are:
Kevin G. Abrams, Esq.
Abrams & Laster, LLP
Brandywine Plaza West, 1521 Concord Pike, #303
Wilmington, DE 19803
Phone: 302-778-1000
Fax: 302-778-1001
Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. (moyer@rlf.com)
Richards, Layton & Finger
One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: 302-651-7700
- and -
John E. James, Esq. (jjames@potteranderson.com)
Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
1313 N. Market St, Hercules Plaza
6th Flr, PO Box 951
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
Phone: 302-984-6000
ALPHA NATURAL: Deal in Foundation Coal Stockholders' Suit Inked
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class action lawsuit filed by a purported
class of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. stockholders, which
names Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. as a defendant, agreed in
principle to settle the action last July 10, 2009.
On June 24, 2009, the registration statement on Form S-4 of
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. was declared effective by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
On June 25, 2009, a complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of
the State of Maryland for Anne Arundel County by Ascot
Associates, an entity identifying itself as a stockholder of
Foundation purporting to represent a class of all Foundation
stockholders other than defendants and their affiliates.
The lawsuit names Foundation as a nominal defendant and names
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. and all of the members of
Foundation's board of directors as defendants.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that Foundation and
its directors breached their fiduciary duties to Foundation's
stockholders and that certain disclosures in the Registration
Statement are misleading and/or incomplete.
In addition, the complaint alleges that Alpha aided and abetted
Foundation's directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties
to Foundation stockholders and alleges that the defendants
conspired to commit tortious acts.
The litigation seeks, among other things, injunctive relief,
class action status, compensatory and/or rescissory damages and
attorney's fees and costs in an amount to be determined at
trial.
On June 29, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order, expedited discovery and a date for a
preliminary injunction hearing. The court scheduled a hearing
on plaintiff's motion for July 2, 2009. In advance of the
hearing, plaintiff and Foundation reached an agreement on a
schedule for expedited discovery.
On July 10, 2009, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
Action. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, all claims
relating to the Merger and the Registration Statement will be
dismissed and released on behalf of the settlement class. The
proposed settlement is subject to certain conditions, including
but not limited to consummation of the Merger and court
approval, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 13, 2009.
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
leading supplier of high-quality Appalachian coal to the steel
industry, electric utilities and other industries.
Approximately 88 percent of the company's reserve base is high
Btu coal and 83 percent is low sulfur, qualities that are valued
by electric utilities that use steam coal. Alpha is also the
nation's largest supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal, a
key ingredient in steel manufacturing. Alpha and its
subsidiaries currently operate mining complexes in four states,
consisting of 50 mines supplying 10 coal preparation and
blending plants. Alpha and its subsidiaries employ more than
3,600 people.
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassadors Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: EPAX), a leading provider
of educational travel experiences, announced that a securities
class action has been filed against the Company and certain
executive officers of the Company on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007.
The class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making untrue statements of material fact and/or omitting to
state material facts, thereby artificially inflating the price
of the Company's common stock.
Although the Company has not yet been served, the Company
has reviewed the complaint and denies the allegations contained
therein. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit
and any alleged claims for damages.
Ambassadors Group, Inc. -- http://ambassadorsgroup.com-- is a
socially conscious, education company located in Spokane,
Washington. Ambassadors Group is the parent company of
Ambassador Programs, Inc., World Adventures Unlimited, Inc. and
Book Rags, Inc., an educational research website. The company
also oversees the Washington School of World Studies, an
accredited travel study and distance learning school.
AMERICA SERVICE: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of America Service Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ASGR) stock between September 24, 2003 to March
16, 2006, alleging America Service violated Federal Securities
Laws is pending at the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee.
On March 31, 2009, Federal Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that that
America Service Group and its top executive officers engaged in
accounting fraud and violated the federal securities laws by
misleading investors and failing to disclose between September
24, 2003 to March 16, 2006 that:
-- America Service was not charging its customers in
accordance with their contracts;
-- America Service failed to properly credit customers
with discounts, rebates, and price concessions;
-- America Service failed to provide customers with
appropriate credits for returned pharmaceutical
products; and
-- America Service inappropriately established and
utilized reserves to help it more closely meet
budgeted results.
The complaint further alleges that after the markets
closed, on March 15, 2006, America Service Group announced that
as a result of the findings of an internal investigation, it
would restate earnings for the years ended December 31, 2001
through December 31, 2004 and for the first six months of 2005
and issue refunds of $3.6 million, plus interest, to customers
for instances in which it failed to credit them with discounts,
rebates or price savings to which they were entitled. On this
news, so the lawsuit, the price of America Service Group, Inc.
fell $5.65, or almost 29%, to close at $13.95 per share.
AROTECH CORP: N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action case brought against Arotech Corporation in
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York is
proceeding with discovery.
In May 2007, two purported class-action complaints were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the company and certain of its officers and
directors. These two cases were consolidated in June 2007.
A similar case that was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan in March 2007 was withdrawn by
the plaintiff in June 2007.
The complaint seeks class status on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between Nov. 9, 2004 and Nov.
14, 2005, and alleges violations by it and certain of its
officers and directors of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
primarily related to the company's acquisition of Armour of
America in 2005 and certain public statements made with respect
to its business and prospects during the Period.
The Complaint also alleges that the company did not have
adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls,
and that its financial statements and reports were not prepared
in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules. It seeks an unspecified
amount of damages.
A lead plaintiff has been named, and the plaintiff's
consolidated amended complaint was filed in September 2007. The
company's motion to dismiss was due by the end of November 2007,
but a decision on the motion is not expected until mid-2008.
In April 2009, Arotech announced that its motion to dismiss as a
matter of law the class action case brought against it in
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
been denied.
The company has filed its answer to the Class Action Complaint,
and the case is now proceeding to the discovery phase, according
to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.
The suit is "Morris Akerman, et al. v. Arotech Corporation, et
al., Case No. 07-CV-01838," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Raymond J. Dearie
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Stull, Stull & Brody
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 310.209.2468
Fax: 310.209.2087
e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. (pklingman@sfmslaw.com)
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Phone: 860-526-1100
Fax: 860-526-1120
- and -
Elizabeth Ann Schmid, Esq. (schmid@browerpiven.com)
Brower Piven, P.C.
488 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10028
Phone: 212-501-9000
Fax: 212-501-0300
Representing the defendants are:
Randall W. Bodner, Esq. (randall.bodner@ropesgray.com)
Ropes & Gray LLP
One International Place
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-951-7000
Fax: 617-951-7050
BOEING CO: Former Workers Seek to Expand Age Bias Case in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Perry Apsley et al. v. The Boeing
Co., Onex Corp. and Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.," want their case
expanded to cover more than 1,000 former Boeing Co. workers over
the age of 40 who were laid off after Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.
was formed from the spinoff of Boeing Co.'s commercial airplane
operations in Wichita, The Associated Press reports.
On Dec. 19, 2005, the action "Perry Apsley et al. v. The Boeing
Co., Onex Corp. and Spirit AeroSystems, Inc." was filed. In
early March 2006, plaintiffs served the company and the other
defendants with the suit, , according to Spirit AeroSystems,
Inc.'s Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 25, 2008
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2008).
Generally, plaintiffs assert several claims and purport to bring
the case as a class action and collective action on behalf of
all individuals who were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas
or Tulsa, Oklahoma within two years prior to the date of the
Boeing Acquisition and who were terminated or not hired by
Spirit.
The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief for age
discrimination, interference with Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 rights, breach of contract and retaliation.
Additionally, plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than $1.5 billion in punitive
damages.
On Nov. 15, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification and held that the plaintiffs may
send notice of the collective action to all former Boeing
employees who were terminated by Boeing on or after Jan. 1,
2002, were 40 years of age or older at the time of termination
and were not hired by Spirit.
Notice has been sent and individuals had until April 20, 2007 to
indicate their interest in joining the lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks class-action status, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than US$1.5 billion in punitive
damages.
The Asset Purchase Agreement requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing
for damages resulting from the employment decisions that were
made by us with respect to former employees of the commercial
aerostructures manufacturing operations at Boeing ("Boeing
Wichita") which relate or allegedly relate to the involvement
of, or consultation with, employees of Boeing in such employment
decisions.
The suit is "Apsley, et al. v. The Boeing Co., et al., Case No.
6:05-cv-01368-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Texas, Judge Monti L. Belot presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq. (u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com)
Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
(l.williamson@swolawfirm.com)
Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC
301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center
Wichita, KS 67202
Phone: 316-261-5400
Fax: 316-261-5404
Representing the defendants are:
James M. Armstrong, Esq. (jarmstrong@foulston.com)
Carolyn L. Matthews, Esq. (cmatthews@foulston.com)
Foulston Siefkin, LLP
1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Phone: 316-291-9576 and 316-267-6371
Fax: 316-267-6345
BRASIL TELECOM: Defending Suits Over Customer Service Centers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA continues to defend civil class
actions demanding the re-opening of customer service centers.
The company a defendant in 39 civil class actions filed by the
Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain
consumer agencies.
The lower courts rendered decisions unfavorable to the company
in 24 of these civil class actions, and Brasil Telecom has
appealed these decisions.
As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company had recorded provisions in the
amount of BRL18 million in relation to these proceedings,
according to its July 13, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.
Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA is a Brazil-based holding
company involved in the telecommunications sector. The
company's main activity is the management of its subsidiary
Brasil Telecom SA (BrT), which operates a local fixed-line
telephone, as well as long-distance services in Brazil. BrT also
provides data and voice, broadband and Internet services, among
others. Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA also owns Nova Tarrafa
Participacoes Ltda and Nova Tarrafa Inc, which provide Internet
services. In January 2009, Telemar Norte Leste SA acquired
61.2% interest in Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA.
BRASIL TELECOM: Defends Suits Seeking to Suspend PIS/COFINS Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA continues to defend several
public class actions filed by the Public Attorney's Office and
the National Association for the Defense of Credit Card
Consumers (Associacao Nacional de Defesa dos Consumidores de
Cartao de Credito).
The company is a defendant in public class actions that aim to
suspend the Social Integration Program (Programa de Integracao
Social), or PIS, taxes, and the federal Contribution for Social
Security Financing (Contribuicao para Financiamento da
Seguridade Social-COFINS), or COFINS, charged to users of
telecommunications services.
As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company classified claims in the amount
of BRL397 million as having a possible risk of loss and the
company had recorded provisions in the amount of BRL69 million
in respect of those assessments for which it classified the risk
of loss as probable, according to its July 13, 2009 Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA is a Brazil-based holding
company involved in the telecommunications sector. The
company's main activity is the management of its subsidiary
Brasil Telecom SA (BrT), which operates a local fixed-line
telephone, as well as long-distance services in Brazil. BrT also
provides data and voice, broadband and Internet services, among
others. Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA also owns Nova Tarrafa
Participacoes Ltda and Nova Tarrafa Inc, which provide Internet
services. In January 2009, Telemar Norte Leste SA acquired
61.2% interest in Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA.
BRASIL TELECOM: Lawsuits Over Subscription Fees Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA remains a defendant in several
class actions and individual claims, which contest the legality
of the subscription fees charged for fixed-line services.
The company has been temporarily prohibited from charging
certain monthly fees with respect to 15,674 of the 66,769
claimants.
Notwithstanding this temporary prohibition, the superior courts
have been rendering decisions that uphold the right to charge
subscription fees, according to the company's July 13, 2009 Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA is a Brazil-based holding
company involved in the telecommunications sector. The
company's main activity is the management of its subsidiary
Brasil Telecom SA (BrT), which operates a local fixed-line
telephone, as well as long-distance services in Brazil. BrT also
provides data and voice, broadband and Internet services, among
others. Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA also owns Nova Tarrafa
Participacoes Ltda and Nova Tarrafa Inc, which provide Internet
services. In January 2009, Telemar Norte Leste SA acquired
61.2% interest in Brasil Telecom Participacoes SA.
COMMONWEALTH OF ANTIGUA: AG Says Government to Fight Texas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda's Attorney General
Justin Simon says the government will vigorously defend itself
against a purported class-action lawsuit filed by Stanford
International Bank investors from United States and Latin
America, according to a Caribbean360.com report.
It was previously reported that the Commonwealth of Antigua and
Barbuda is facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act (Class Action Reporter, July 16, 2009).
The suit was filed on July 13, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas by Joan Gale Frank, Jon A.
Bell, Samuel Bukrinsky, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein, Peggy
Roif Rotstain, Juan C. Olano, and John Wade, under the caption,
"Frank v. The Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda, Case No.
4:2009-cv-02217."
The suit claims that the Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda
aided and abetted Robert Allen Stanford's $8 billion Ponzi
scheme by providing his Stanford International Bank a safe haven
in exchange for kickbacks, according to a report by Cameron
Langford of The Courthouse News Service.
The proposed class includes people who invested money in
Certificates of Deposit issued by the Stanford International
Bank in Antigua, also known as Antigua and Barbuda.
According to the 74-page complaint, a copy of which was obtained
by The Courthouse News Service, "Antigua is a sovereign but not
above the law. It became a full partner in Stanford's fraud,
and reaped enormous financial benefits from the scheme.
Stanford stuffed Antigua's coffers -- and its officials' pockets
-- with money stolen from customers."
The suit states that as a member of the British Commonwealth of
Nations, Antigua helped Stanford's bank portray itself as a
legitimate provider of financial services. This, according to
the complaint, provided a pretext for the transfer of criminal
proceeds from Stanford to Antigua.
The plaintiffs -- represented by Lackey Hershman LLP of Dallas
-- are seeking at least $8 billion in damages, The Courthouse
News Service reported.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f39
For more details, contact:
Jamie R. Welton, Esq. (jrw@lhlaw.net)
Lackey Hershman LLP
3102 Oak Lawn Ave
Ste. 777
Dallas, TX 75219-4241
Phone: 214-560-2201
Fax: 214-560-2203
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Judge Grants Dismissal Bid in ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge S. James Otero of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted Computer Sciences Corp. summary
judgment on all claims in the consolidated class-action suit
against the company, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Law360 reports.
The company has essentially won the dismissal of a class-action
lawsuit by current and former employees alleging CSC mismanaged
their 401(k) plans by imprudently investing in its own stock,
which plummeted in the wake of reports of options backdating at
the technology company, according to Law360.
On Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class action involving
allegations of backdating at CSC was filed in U.S. District
Court in the Eastern District of New York, entitled, "Quan, et
al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-3927," (Class Action Reporter, June
15, 2009).
On Sept. 21, 2006, a related ERISA class action was filed in the
same court, entitled, "Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-5100."
The complaints named as defendants CSC, the CSC Retirement and
Employee Benefits Plans Committee, and various directors and
officers, and alleged various violations of the ERISA statute.
The two ERISA actions have been consolidated and, on Feb. 28,
2007, plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action complaint.
On Jan. 8, 2008, the district court granted a motion to transfer
the consolidated cases to the federal district court in Los
Angeles, California. Upon arrival in the Central District of
California, the two cases were consolidated before U.S. District
Judge James Otero in Case No. CV 08-2398-SJO.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for class certification, and Defendants filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion on Aug. 11, 2008.
On Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued orders denying defendants'
motion to dismiss, and also denying plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Defendants have since answered the complaint and
discovery is currently proceeding.
On Nov. 13, 2008, plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification and the defendants filed a memorandum in
opposition on Dec. 8, 2008. On Dec. 29, 2008, Judge Otero
granted plaintiffs motion for class certification.
On Jan. 13, 2009, defendants filed a petition with the Ninth
Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the federal Rules, requesting
that the court of appeals accept their appeal from the order
granting class certification. Plaintiffs filed their opposition
on Jan. 23, 2009. The Ninth Circuit denied defendants' request
for permission to appeal on March 12, 2009.
Each of the defendants and the plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment in district court on May 4, 2009. Reply briefs
were filed on May 22, 2009, according to Computer Sciences
Corporation's May 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 3, 2009.
Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is engaged in
the information technology (IT) and professional services
industry. CSC offers an array of services to clients in the
commercial and government markets. Its service offerings
include IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and
professional services. Outsourcing involves operating all or a
portion of a customer's technology infrastructure, including
systems analysis, applications development, network operations,
desktop computing and data center management. IT and
professional services include systems integration, consulting
and other professional services. Consulting and professional
services includes advising clients on the acquisition and
utilization of IT and on business strategy, security, modeling,
simulation, engineering, operations, change management and
business process re-engineering. In December 2008, the Company
acquired Object Builder Software.
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An investor in Comtech Telecommunications Corp. (NASDAQ:
CMTL) has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Comtech Telecommunications
common stock during the period between September 17, 2008 and
March 9, 2009 over alleged securities laws violations.
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Comtech
Telecommunications Corp. (NASDAQ: CMTL) common stock during the
period between September 17, 2008 and March 9, 2009 (Class
Action Reporter, July 16, 2009).
The complaint charges Comtech and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Company engages in the design, development,
production, and marketing of products, systems, and services for
advanced communications solutions in the United States and
internationally.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects. Specifically,
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts:
-- that the Company was experiencing negative trends in
its commercial satellite earth station and encoder
bookings, as well as commercial RF Amplifier bookings;
-- that the Company's sales from its Mobile Data
Communications division were weakening outside of its
one order with the U.S. Army's Movement Tracking
System ("MTS");
-- that the Company was experiencing difficulty
integrating the Radyne acquisition and was not
generating the synergies expected from the
acquisition;
-- that the Company's costs were rising in excess of
internal forecasts reducing profit margins; and
-- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about
the Company, its prospects, and its revenue and
earnings projections.
Then, on March 9, 2009, Comtech issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the fiscal second quarter
of 2009, the period ended January 31, 2009. In response to the
Company's drastic reduction in its revenue and earnings guidance
for 2009, the price of Comtech common stock fell $12.97 per
share, or approximately 37%, to close at $22.48 per share, on
extremely heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Comtech common stock during the Class Period.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 11, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/comtech/
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Settlement of "Graden" Claims Pending Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of all outstanding claims in a purported
class-action suit against Conexant Systems, Inc., certain of its
current and former officers, and its Employee Benefits Plan
Committee is pending approval.
The suit was filed in February 2005, on behalf of all persons
who were participants in the company's 401(k) Plan during a
specified class period, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act. It specifically alleges that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, as
amended, to the Plan and the participants in the Plan.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005. On
Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case.
On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed the case and ordered it
closed. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 17,
2006.
The appellate argument was held on April 19, 2007. On July 31,
2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated
the District Court's order dismissing the Graden complaint and
remanded the case for further proceedings.
On Nov. 17, 2007, the defendants filed a Renewed Motion to
Dismiss with the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. The
plaintiffs filed an opposition on Feb. 8, 2008.
On Dec. 4, 2007, the defendants also filed a petition for
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's ruling, which petition
was denied on March 3, 2008.
On Aug. 27, 2008, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and
denied in part. The judge left in claims against all of the
individual defendants as well as against the Company.
In January 2009, the Company and plaintiff agreed in principle
to settle all outstanding claims in the litigation for $3.25
million. The Company recorded a special charge of $3.7 million
in the first fiscal quarter of 2009 to cover this settlement and
any associated costs. The settlement remains subject to the
negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement, confirmatory
discovery, and approval by the District Court, according to its
May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2009.
The suit is "Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Judge Stanley R. Chesler, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. (lisa@trrlaw.com)
Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP
8 Kings Highway
West Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: 856-795-9002
Representing the defendants is:
Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. (greilly@lowenstein.com)
Lowenstein Sandler, PC
65 Livingston Ave.
Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
Phone: 973-597-2500
DIRECTV INC: California Court Allows Fee Litigation to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit charging that DIRECTV, the satellite
entertainment company, imposes unlawful early cancellation fees
of up to $480, often taking the money directly out of a
consumer's credit card or bank account without the customer's
permission, may proceed, a California Superior Court judge has
ruled.
"This is a major step forward in our mission to obtain
justice for California consumers cheated by DIRECTV," said
Harvey Rosenfield, founder of the non-profit Consumer Watchdog,
who, along with Litigation Director Pamela Pressley, is one of
the attorneys in the case.
"California consumers who continue to have their bank
accounts plundered without their consent by DIRECTV deserve
their day in court, and the court's recent ruling will allow the
plaintiffs to move forward with uncovering and exposing the
extent of DIRECTV's deceptive practices," said Ms. Pressley.
In a complaint filed last September in Los Angeles Superior
Court on behalf of current and former California DIRECTV
customers who were charged an early cancellation penalty, Los
Angeles resident Kathy Greiner explained that when her DIRECTV
receiver stopped working, she ordered a new one. It began
experiencing problems, but DIRECTV would not resolve the
problem. So Greiner, a six-year customer of the company,
canceled her service and returned the equipment. DIRECTV
subsequently levied a $240 "early cancellation" penalty on
Greiner, which the company took directly from her bank account
(after deducting some amounts she had previously paid) without
her knowledge or permission.
Greiner's complaint was later consolidated with another
lawsuit brought by Amy Imburgia and Marlene Mecca, also
California residents. The joint lawsuit, "Imburgia, et. al, v.
DirecTV, Inc.," alleges that DIRECTV failed to disclose to
purchasers that it imposed an 18 or 24 month term of service and
that cancellation before the end of the term would result in
enormous penalty fees. The company would also automatically
extend the "contractual obligation" by another year or two if
malfunctioning equipment needed to be replaced or the customer
decided to make a change to programming or other services.
DIRECTV charged the fee to customers' credit cards, or even took
the funds out of their checking accounts. These policies were
not properly disclosed to purchasers beforehand, and consumers
did not agree to them, the suit states.
DRUG MANUFACTURERS: Family of Alberta Man Sues Over Pain Patch
--------------------------------------------------------------
The family of an Alberta man who died from use of a pain patch
initiated a class-action lawsuit against five drug manufacturing
firms for not warning users of the risks of using the fentanyl
patch, Gant Daily reports.
The Merchant Law Group filed the class-action lawsuit against
Ratiopharm, Janssen-Ortho, Novopharm, Cobalt Pharmaceuticals and
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Canada on behalf of the family of Doug
Hoy.
Mr. Hoy was found sprawled on his apartment. A toxicology
report pointed to fentanyl as the culprit. Mr. Hoy used the
patch to relieve the pain on his back after another strong
opiate, OxyContin, did not take away his back pain, according to
Gant Daily.
Fentanyl's opiate content is 80 to 100 times as powerful as
morphine. Early this year, Health Canada announced changes in
the dosage guidelines for Fentanyl Transdermal Systems. The
manufacturer provided new conversion tables to guide patients
not to use higher dosages.
In the statement of claim filed by the law firm with the
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Merchants said fentanyl was
prescribed even if it lacks clear, complete and current warning
of the risks in using the pain reliever, Gant Daily reported.
Gant Daily reports that Merchant is seeking financial damage for
income loss, pain and suffering and cost of future care for its
victims. The law firm has invited other Canadian residents who
have similar complaints against the pain patch to join Mr. Hoy's
family in the class-action lawsuit.
For more details, contact:
The Merchant Law Group
Phone: 1-888-567-7777, 1-800-529-9377 or 1-800-LAWYERS
e-mail: merchant@merchantlaw.com
Web site: http://www.merchantlaw.com/
FIRST HEALTH: Ill. Judge Resets Fairness Hearing for "Coy" Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court has reset
a fairness hearing for the settlement in the matter, "Richard C.
Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic Health Center, P.C., and
Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed Care, Inc. and First
Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois,
Case No. 04-L-1055," after it became clear that the judge's July
15, 2009 docket was overloaded, Amelia Flood of The St. Clair
Record reports.
Judge Stack essentially decided that a jammed asbestos docket
had to take precedence over the fairness hearing, according to
The St. Clair Record reports.
Previously, The St. Clair Record reported that Judge Stack moved
to continue the fairness hearing over the proposed settlement in
the matter to July 15, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, July 14,
2009).
After three hours of argument at a fairness hearing held on May
26, 2009, Judge Stack told attorneys, "My brain hurts." He
added, "I've had just about all I can take," according to The
St. Clair Record report (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2009).
Judge Stack was referring to arguments over the settlement of a
suit against First Health Insurance Co. While both parties
reached a settlement back in 2008, the settlement has yet to be
approved due to an objection filed by a class member with a
similar lawsuit pending in St. Clair County, The St. Clair
Record reported.
The judge has continued the hearing until July 15 at 10 a.m. He
will hear the remainder of the objector's arguments and
responses from plaintiff and defense counsel, reports The St.
Clair Record.
Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record previously reported that a
fairness hearing is set for May 26, 2009 to determine whether a
charitable contribution of more than $1.2 million is a fair end
to a 2004 chiropractor class-action suit against insurer First
Health Group Corp. over claims adjustments (Class Action
Reporter, May 26, 2009).
Previously, it was reported that the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial District, Madison County, Illinois, will hold a
fairness hearing on May 26, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed
settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit captioned,
"Richard C. Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic Health Center,
P.C., and Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed Care, Inc. and
First Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois, Case No. 04-L-1055," (Class Action Reporter, April 6,
2009).
This lawsuit was filed Sept. 24, 2004. In the suit, plaintiffs
claim that CCN Managed Care, Inc. (f/k/a Community Care Network,
Inc.), and First Health Group Corp., (collectively First
Health), operated Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) networks
through which healthcare payors improperly discounted the bills
of Illinois healthcare providers who treated workers'
compensation claimants and Illinois automobile accident policy
claimants.
Granite City chiropractor Lawrence Shipley and Glen Carbon
chiropractor Richard Coy settled the class-action suit against
First Health in Madison County in January, reports The St. Clair
Record.
In the settlement, First Health did not admit to any wrongdoing.
It was to give $1.25 million to a charity. The company would
pay $650,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Wood River attorney
Brad Lakin's law firm and a $10,000 incentive award to the class
representatives, according to The St. Clair Record report.
For more details, contact:
LakinChapman, LLC
300 Evans Ave,
PO Box 229,
Wood River, IL
Phone: 618-254-1127
e-mail: ppo.classaction@lakinchapman.com
Web site: http://www.lakinchapman.com
- and -
PPO Settlement Administrator
PO Box 1971
Fairbault MN 55021-6167
Phone: 1-866-680-6562
Web site: http://www.pposettlements.com
FOUNDATION COAL: Inks Settlement in Md. Stockholder Suit in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class action by Ascot Associates,
which names Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. as a nominal
defendant, agreed in principle to settle the action last July
10, 2009.
On June 24, 2009, the registration statement on Form S-4 of
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. was declared effective by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
On June 25, 2009, a complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of
the State of Maryland for Anne Arundel County by Ascot
Associates, an entity identifying itself as a stockholder of
Foundation purporting to represent a class of all Foundation
stockholders other than defendants and their affiliates.
The lawsuit names Foundation as a nominal defendant and names
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. and all of the members of
Foundation's board of directors as defendants.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that Foundation and
its directors breached their fiduciary duties to Foundation's
stockholders and that certain disclosures in the Registration
Statement are misleading and/or incomplete.
In addition, the complaint alleges that Alpha aided and abetted
Foundation's directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties
to Foundation stockholders and alleges that the defendants
conspired to commit tortious acts.
The litigation seeks, among other things, injunctive relief,
class action status, compensatory and/or rescissory damages and
attorney's fees and costs in an amount to be determined at
trial.
On June 29, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order, expedited discovery and a date for a
preliminary injunction hearing. The court scheduled a hearing
on plaintiff's motion for July 2, 2009. In advance of the
hearing, plaintiff and Foundation reached an agreement on a
schedule for expedited discovery.
On July 10, 2009, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
Action. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, all claims
relating to the Merger and the Registration Statement will be
dismissed and released on behalf of the settlement class. The
proposed settlement is subject to certain conditions, including
but not limited to consummation of the Merger and court
approval, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 13, 2009.
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc., --
http://www.foundationcoal.com/-- through its affiliates, is a
major U.S. coal producer operating mines and associated
processing and loading facilities in Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Wyoming. Through its subsidiaries Foundation Coal
employs approximately 3,000 people and produces approximately 70
million tons of coal annually, largely for utilities generating
electricity. Foundation's corporate offices are in Linthicum
Heights, Md.
MARICOPA COUNTY: Ariz. Court Allows Suit v. Sheriff to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the for the District of Arizona has
allowed a purported civil rights class-action lawsuit against
Sheriff Joe Arpaio to proceed.
The litigation was filed on Dec. 12, 2007 under the caption,
"Melendres v. Arpaio, et al., Case No. 2:2007-cv-02513," with
Judge Lawrence O. Anderson, presiding.
In the case, the American Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel
for Latino plaintiffs who were subjected to racial profiling and
police misconduct by the Sheriff's Office in Maricopa County,
Arizona.
It was previously reported that five individuals and Somos
America, a Latino community-based coalition, sued Maricopa
County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office
and Maricopa County, charging that they or their members were
unlawfully stopped and mistreated by law enforcement because
they are Latinos (Class Action Reporter, July 18, 2008).
The class-action lawsuit, which builds upon a complaint filed in
December 2007, is before the U.S. District Court in Arizona. An
amended complaint was filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union, the ACLU of Arizona, the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund, and lead counsel Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
The lawsuit charges that the policies and practices of Mr.
Arpaio and the county are discriminatory and unlawfully violate
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Arizona
Constitution.
For more details, visit: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f52
MICHIGAN: Settles Female Inmates' Sexual Assault Suit For $100M
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Michigan will pay $100 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit by more than 500 female inmates who claimed they
were sexually assaulted, abused and harassed by male corrections
staff, The Associated Press reports.
Department of Corrections spokesman Russ Marlan tells The
Associated Press that Gov. Jennifer Granholm authorized the
settlement after juries in two separate trials, each involving
about 10 female prisoners, returned with verdicts that in the
end would total nearly $60 million.
Mr. Marlan also said that the state attorney general's office
recommended the settlement, which does not "constitute an
admission of liability, but a compromise of the disputed
claims," according to The Associated Press.
The first $10 million of the settlement is due Oct. 15, 2009
with more installments each following year up until the last $25
million is paid out on Oct. 15, 2014, The Associated Press
reported.
NASHUA CORP: Settles N.H. Lawsuit Over Cenveo Merger Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nashua Corp. settled a purported class-action lawsuit over the
company's merger with Cenveo, Inc. in exchange for disclosures
about the merger and $175,000 in legal fees, Bob Sanders of The
New Hampshire Business Review reports.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
approved the settlement on July 14, 2009, and set an October 19
hearing in case anybody raised objections, according to The New
Hampshire Business Review.
Under the merger, which still has to be approved by the
shareholders, the Connecticut-based Cenveo would pay 75 cents
cash and offer $6.13 a share for every share of Nashua Corp.
stock.
The specialty paper company closed $2.52 a share before the May
7 merger announcement, and then shot up to $6.50 a share
afterward.
The lawsuit charged that the deal was "unconscionable" and
"grossly inadequate," and that the Nashua board of directors
would be betraying their shareholders by accepting it. But
after Nashua filed its preliminary proxy statement, the
plaintiffs focused on the adequacy of disclosures, The New
Hampshire Business Review reported.
The settlement provides some additional disclosures -- unaudited
financial projections and a report by Nashua's financial
advisor, Lincoln International LLC, reports The New Hampshire
Business Review.
REGIONS FIN'L: Suits by Funds Investors & Shareholders Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-actions lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on
behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions
Morgan Keegan Select Funds and shareholders of Regions Financial
Corp. remain pending.
The company and certain of its affiliates were named in class-
action lawsuits filed in late 2007 and during 2008.
The complaints contain various allegations, including claims
that the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material facts relating to the activities of the Funds.
No class has been certified, according to the company's May 13,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.
Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a
financial holding company that operates throughout the South,
Midwest and Texas. The Company provides traditional commercial,
retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial
services in the fields of investment banking, asset management,
trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other
specialty financing.
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Labor-Related Suit Still in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit in a California state court,
alleging that Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. failed to provide former
employees with certain meal and rest period breaks and overtime
pay is still in the pre-class certification discovery stage.
The lawsuit was filed on March 24, 2005, by a former employee of
the company. The parties moved the matter into arbitration, and
the former employee amended the complaint to claim that he
represents a class of potential plaintiffs.
The amended complaint alleges that current and former shift
leaders who worked in the company's California restaurants
during specified time periods worked off the clock and missed
meal and rest breaks.
This case is still in the pre-class certification discovery
stage, and no class has been certified, according to the
company's May 31, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2009.
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns,
operates and franchises restaurants. As of March 25, 2008, the
company owned and operated 174 fast-casual Mexican restaurants,
three licensed locations, and two franchised restaurants that
offers Mexican cuisine, including chargrilled chicken, steak and
fresh seafood items, such as burritos, tacos and quesadillas
inspired by the Baja, California region of Mexico. The company
has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Rubio's Restaurants of
Nevada, Inc., and and Rubio's Promotions, Inc. Its restaurants
are located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah.
The company's menu includes the Fish Tacos, HealthMex and Kid's
Meals.
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Motion to Add Individuals Into Deal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc.'s motion requesting a California court
to include certain individuals in the $7.5-million settlement of
a class-action lawsuit against the company that relates to how
the company classified certain employees under California
overtime laws remain pending.
Initially, in 2001, two similar class-action lawsuits were filed
against the company. These lawsuits were consolidated into one
action.
The consolidated action involves the issue of whether current
and former employees in the general manager and assistant
manager positions who worked in the company's California
restaurants during specified time periods were misclassified as
exempt and deprived of overtime pay. It also asserts claims for
alleged missed meal and rest breaks.
In addition to unpaid overtime, these cases seek to recover
waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other
types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees
that these former employees purport to represent.
On March 19, 2007, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the class action representatives to settle the
matter.
Although the company denies the allegations underlying the
consolidated action, it has agreed to the proposed settlement to
avoid significant legal fees, other expenses and management time
that would have to be devoted to pursue a victory in litigation.
The settlement, which is subject to final documentation and
court approval, provides for a settlement payment of $7.5
million in the aggregate (including attorneys' fees and costs,
fees for administering the settlement and any employer taxes).
The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
March 23, 2007. The settlement agreement was then approved on a
final basis by the court in June 2007.
The total settlement amount is payable in three installments.
The first $2.5 million installment was paid on Aug. 31, 2007.
The second $2.5 million installment is due on or before Dec. 28,
2008. The third and final installment of $2.5 million is due on
or before June 28, 2010.
As of March 29, 2009, the remaining balance of $2.5 million,
plus accrued interest of $218,000, was accrued in "Accrued
expenses and other liabilities" and "Deferred rent and other
liabilities" in the amounts of $109,000 and $2.6 million,
respectively.
The company learned that 140 current and former employees who
qualified to participate as class members in this class action
settlement were not included in the settlement list approved by
the court, and some number of these individuals may file claims
to participate in the class action.
It has filed a motion requesting the court to include these
individuals in the approved settlement and to provide that their
claims are payable out of the aggregate settlement payment, as
the company believes the parties intended when they reached a
settlement. The matter has not yet been finally resolved,
according to the company's May 31, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2009.
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns,
operates and franchises restaurants. As of March 25, 2008, the
company owned and operated 174 fast-casual Mexican restaurants,
three licensed locations, and two franchised restaurants that
offers Mexican cuisine, including chargrilled chicken, steak and
fresh seafood items, such as burritos, tacos and quesadillas
inspired by the Baja, California region of Mexico. The company
has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Rubio's Restaurants of
Nevada, Inc., and and Rubio's Promotions, Inc. Its restaurants
are located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah.
The company's menu includes the Fish Tacos, HealthMex and Kid's
Meals.
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Faces Mich. Suit Over Alleged Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit
in Michigan that was filed by two individuals whose Maumee
Street property may be contaminated by chemicals that could have
leached during the production process at the company's plant,
Deb Wuethrich of Tecumseh Herald reports.
The suit was filed in Lenawee County Circuit Court in Adrian on
July 14, 2009 by attorney Chuck Gross, Esq. on behalf of Thomas
and Robert Robarge, according to Tecumseh Herald.
The company operated a manufacturing plant making compressor
units and small engines in the city for more than 70 years prior
to discontinuing manufacturing here and moving its corporate
offices to Pittsfield Township, reports Tecumseh Herald.
Nine counts were listed in the lawsuit, ranging from negligence
to neglect involving the releasing of hazardous chemicals into
the ground and surrounding environment, with claims of causing a
potentially hazardous and dangerous condition. The lawsuit also
lists counts citing emotional distress and trespassing, Tecumseh
Herald reports.
Tecumseh Herald reported that Mr. Gross currently represents the
Robarge family, but also notes in Count IX of the suit that the
plaintiffs are among 72 other property owners who were advised
that their property is likely to be within an area of impacted
groundwater. He is asking that the complaint be certified as a
class-action case.
For more details, contact:
Charles H. Gross, Esq.
105 Brown Street
Tecumseh, MI 49286
Phone: (517) 423-8344
Fax: (517) 423-8347
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Budeprion XL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit in California claiming that the company's
Budeprion XL, a generic form of Wellbutrin, delivers the drug
much more rapidly, making "less effective in treating
depression" and "much more likely to cause certain dangerous
side effects," Andy Georgiades of Dow Jones Newswires reports.
The suit was filed May 29, 2009 in the Superior Court for the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles by Laura Kelly
of Los Angeles, who has been designated as the lead plaintiff in
the case, according to Dow Jones Newswires.
The filing says that Budeprion XL has an inferior delivery
system compared to Wellbutrin XL, made by Canada's Biovail Corp.
(BVF), that results in a more rapid and potentially harmful
release of the drug. Biovail recently purchased the full U.S.
rights from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), reports Dow Jones Newswires.
The Courthouse News Service previously reported that the suit
also named as defendants Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Anchen
Pharmaceuticals (Class Action Reporter, June 4, 2009).
The plaintiff -- represented by Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. With
Milstein, Adelman & Kreger of Santa Monica -- seeks restitution,
disgorgement, damages, and an injunction, reports The Courthouse
News Service.
For more details, contact:
Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LLP
2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
Santa Monica, California 90405
Phone: 888.835.8055 or 310.396.9600
Fax: 310.396.9635
e-mail: info@maklawyers.com
Web sites: http://www.maklawyers.com/and
http://www.budeprionclassaction.com
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Pending in Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
TomoTherapy, Inc., continues to face two purported securities
fraud class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, according to the company's May
13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009.
On May 30, 2008 and June 10, 2008, two separate complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin against the company and certain of its officers.
On Oct. 23, 2008, those complaints were consolidated into a
Consolidated Amended Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin, against the company,
certain of its officers and all of its independent directors
during the period in question.
The consolidated action alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 with respect to statements made in
connection with the initial and secondary public offerings of
the company's common stock.
The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by misrepresenting the company's projected
financial outlook during the period May 9, 2007 through April
17, 2008.
The plaintiffs seek to represent persons who purchased the
company's securities between those dates and who were damaged as
a result of the decline in the price of the company's stock
between those dates, allegedly attributable to the financial
misrepresentations.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount.
TomoTherapy, Inc. -- http://www.tomotherapy.com/-- develops,
manufactures and sells the Hi-Art system, a radiation therapy
system commercially available for the treatment of a variety of
cancers. The company manufactures each Hi Art system in a
64,000 square foot facility in Madison, Wisconsin. It markets
the Hi Art system to hospitals and cancer treatment centers in
North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific, and
offer customer support services in each region. TomoTherapy
also has a collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratories with regard to acceleration technology. North
America, Europe and Asia-Pacific accounted for 56%, 26% and 18%,
respectively, of the company's revenue during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007. Service revenue comprises a small portion of its
total revenue.
TRONOX INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An investor has filed a proposed securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Tronox, Inc.
(OTC:TRXAQ.PK, OTC:TRXBQ.PK) common stock (Class A or Class B)
between November 28, 2005 and January 12, 2009, inclusive over
alleged federal securities laws violations by Kerr-McGee Corp,
Anadarko Petroleum Corp and others.
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Tronox, Inc. (OTC:TRXAQ.PK, OTC:TRXBQ) common
stock (Class A or Class B) between November 28, 2005 and January
12, 2009, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Tronox is not named in
this action as a defendant because it filed for bankruptcy
protection in January 2009.
The complaint charges Kerr-McGee Corporation ("Kerr-
McGee"), Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ("Anadarko") and certain
of Kerr-McGee and Tronox's executives with violations of the
Exchange Act. Tronox is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
business of producing and marketing titanium dioxide - a white
pigment used in a wide range of products to impart whiteness,
brightness and opacity.
Tronox was spun-off from Kerr-McGee in a two-step
transaction. In November 2005, Kerr-McGee sold 17.5 million
shares of Tronox Class A shares in an initial public offering
for $14.00 per share (the "IPO") generating proceeds for Kerr-
McGee of $225 million. After the IPO, Kerr-McGee continued to
hold 56.7% of Tronox's outstanding common stock. In March 2006,
Kerr-McGee distributed the balance of the shares that it owned
as Class B shares to its shareholders as a dividend (the "Spin-
Off").
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to
disclose the true scope and extent of Tronox's environmental and
tort liabilities. When the market learned of the true facts
about the Company, the price of Tronox stock declined
precipitously.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Tronox common stock during the Class Period.
For more details, contact:
Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/tronox/
URS CORP: Unit Still Defends Suits on New Orleans Levee Failure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI
Ohio"), intends to continue to defend class action lawsuits
relating to work done in New Orleans, according to URS
Corporation's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April
3, 2009.
From July 1999 through May 2005, WGI Ohio, a wholly owned
subsidiary acquired by the company on Nov. 15, 2007, performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank
of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in
New Orleans, Louisiana. On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans. The storm surge created by the
hurricane overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall,
flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city.
Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and
class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant. Other defendants
include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the
Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire
and Marine Insurance Company.
Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases, including the WGI Ohio
cases, have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.
The plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their
design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans
levees.
The plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who claim
to have incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure
of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.
The allegation against the company is that the work it performed
adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall
and caused and/or contributed to breaches and flooding.
The plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and demand
attorneys' fees and costs.
WGI Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of
the levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after
Hurricane Katrina. WGI Ohio performed the work adjacent to the
Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government and
has pursued dismissal from the lawsuits on a motion for summary
judgment on the basis that government contractors are immune
from liability.
On April 14, 2009, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that
the company performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal
as a contractor for the federal government and are therefore
immune from liability, which was appealed by a number of the
plaintiffs on April 27, 2009, to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
URS Corporation -- http://www.urscorp.com/-- is a provider of
engineering, construction and technical services. The company
offers a range of program management, planning, design,
engineering, construction and construction management,
operations and maintenance, and decommissioning and closure
services to public agencies and private sector clients
worldwide. The company is focused on four market sectors:
power, infrastructure, federal, and industrial and commercial.
It has three divisions: the URS Division, the EG&G Division and
the Washington Division. Through its network of offices across
the United States and in more than 30 countries, the company
provides services to a range of domestic and international
clients, including the United States federal government
agencies, national governments of other countries, and state and
local government agencies both in the United States and in
international locations.
WHITNEY INFORMATION: Bid to Nix "Friedman" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Information Network, Inc. awaits a ruling by the U.S.
District Court in the Middle District of Florida as to the
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint filed by Arnold Friedman individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.
By an order dated Nov. 17, 2008, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice the initial
complaint styled, "Durham v. Whitney Information Network, Inc.
et al.," filed by the plaintiffs on Dec. 28, 2006.
On Dec. 8, 2008, the company was served a consolidated amended
class action complaint filed by Arnold Friedman individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.
Mr. Friedman seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorney costs
and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Middle
District Court.
On Jan. 30, 2009, the company, along with defendants Whitney,
Simon, Novas, Kane, and Maturo moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, arguing that plaintiffs have not and cannot
state claims against them as a matter of law and that the claims
against them should be dismissed with prejudice. This case has
not been certified as a class action, according to the company's
May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.
Whitney Information Network, Inc. provides post-secondary
educational and training courses for students throughout the
United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, interested in
learning about real estate and financial markets. The company's
courses provide instruction in real estate investing, business
strategies, stock market investment techniques, cash management,
asset protection and other financially oriented subjects. WIN
also develops and sells educational resource materials, which it
prepares, to support its course offerings and for sale to the
general public.
WHITNEY INFORMATION: Canadian Unit Defends Investments Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Information Network, Inc. and wholly owned subsidiary,
Whitney Canada, Inc., continue to face a class-action suit on
behalf of all persons who have made various real estate
investments in Quebec, Canada, according to the company's May
13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.
On Jan. 11, 2007, Whitney Canada, Inc. and Whitney Information
Network, Inc. received notice of an Amended Motion for
Authorization to Institute a Class Action in the Province of
Quebec, Canada.
A class-action suit was requested for all persons who have made
various real estate investments, at the alleged inducement, or
through, Marc Jemus, Francois Roy, Robert Primeau and/or their
companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc., and/or
Whitney Information Network, Inc. and/or Jean Lafreniere.
The complaint seeks repayment of $39,235 to the Petitioner,
unspecified payment to each member of the class of an amount
corresponding to their lost investments, payment of $10,000 to
each member of the class as general damages, recovery of costs
and other litigation expenses, and unspecified equitable relief.
Whitney Information Network, Inc. provides post-secondary
educational and training courses for students throughout the
United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, interested in
learning about real estate and financial markets. The company's
courses provide instruction in real estate investing, business
strategies, stock market investment techniques, cash management,
asset protection and other financially oriented subjects. WIN
also develops and sells educational resource materials, which it
prepares, to support its course offerings and for sale to the
general public.
New Securities Fraud Cases
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Roy Jacobs Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Manulife Financial Corporation
(NYSE: MFC) securities between March 28, 2008 and June 22, 2009.
The Complaint charges Manulife and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
This case involves Manulife's segregated fund contracts
("Segregated Fund Contracts") business, and its failure to
disclose the true risks the Company could face to support this
business during adverse economic conditions. Segregated Fund
Contracts are insurance contracts also known as individual
variable annuities that offer death benefits and maturity
guarantees where Manulife agreed to make guaranteed payments to
the beneficiaries in future years. Manulife invests the
premiums received on these contracts in order to cover the
future obligations.
The complaint alleges that Manulife made false and
misleading statements regarding its ability to manage and
control risk in the Segregated Fund Contracts business. In
fact, contrary to the Company's own purported risk management
strategy, Manulife applied no material hedging techniques to
limit this risk during an economic downturn. Indeed, at the
very time the risk management strategy was disclosed to the
investing public, the world economic system was suffering huge
negative shocks and the equity markets were highly volatile and
risky. The complaint further alleges that contrary to its
purported risk management strategy, Manulife built up a massive
stock portfolio, which it chose to leave unhedged. This
resulted in a huge decline in the funds available to guaranty
the Segregated Fund Contracts obligations, forcing the Company
to raise billions in capital.
Thus, on February 12, 2009, Manulife revealed that its
reserves for Segregated Fund Contracts had to be increased from
$526 million as of December 31, 2007 to an astonishing $5.7
billion for the period ending December 31, 2008. As a result of
the disclosure of this adverse news, which revealed part of the
truth about the risk of the Company's Segregated Fund Contracts
business, the Company's shares declined from $15.25 per share on
February 11, 2009, to $9.87 on February 23, 2009.
Then, on June 19, 2009, after the market closed, Manulife
announced that it received an enforcement notice from the
Ontario Securities Commission ("OSC") of a preliminary
conclusion that the Company failed to meet its obligations to
properly disclose the market price risks of Manulife's
Segregated Fund Contracts and variable annuity businesses to
investors in the Company's securities. On June 22, 2009, the
Company's shares dropped 12% to close at $17.67 on an unusually
high trading volume of almost 8 million shares.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
Roy Jacobs & Associates
Phone: 1-888-884-4490
Web site: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Charles H. Johnson Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of
Synovus Financial Corporation (NYSE: SNV) publicly traded
securities during the period January 24, 2008 through January
21, 2009.
The Complaint alleges Defendants issued false and
misleading statements about the company's business and financial
results and failed to disclose the extent of its large exposure
to Sea Island Company, a resort in Georgia, and the
deteriorating condition of Sea Island. The Complaint further
alleges that the Company failed to adequately and timely record
losses for its impaired loans, causing its financial results to
be false.
As a result of Defendants' false statements, investors
purchased Synovus at inflated prices. The stock reached a high
of $13.49 per share on February 1, 2008. Then, on January 22,
2009, Synovus reported a net loss for the fourth quarter of 2008
of $637 million, or $1.93 per share. The fourth quarter 2008
results included a provision expense of $364 million and a $443
million non-cash goodwill impairment charge. On this news,
Synovus stock fell to as low as $4.52 before it closed at $4.75
per share on January 22, 2009.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 5, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
Charles H. Johnson & Associates
2599 Mississippi Street
New Brighton, MN 55112
Phone: (651) 633-5685
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No New Development in Chase Suit at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation says that, as of June 30, 2009, there have
been no new developments in an Ohio asbestos lawsuit, in which
the Company is a defendant.
The Company is one of over 100 defendants in a personal injury
lawsuit, pending in Ohio, which alleges personal injury from
exposure to asbestos contained in certain Chase products. The
plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the Company
in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in
September 2005.
The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30,
2007. However, that date was postponed and no new trial date has
been set.
Bridgewater, Mass.-based Chase Corporation's products include
insulating and conducting materials for electrical wire;
electrical repair tapes; protective pipe coatings;
thermoelectric insulation for electrical equipment; and moisture
protective coatings for electronics.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sterlite USA Agrees to Represent Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterlite Industries (India) Limited's subsidiary in the United
States, Sterlite (USA), Inc., on June 12, 2009, agreed with the
representatives appointed under ASARCO LLC's reorganization
proceedings under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to
represent all persons with asbestos claims and demands against
Asarco and its subsidiary debtors.
Sterlite USA also agrees for Asarco to grant a put option to the
Asbestos Trust under which the Asbestos Trust shall be entitled
to sell to Sterlite USA its Asbestos Litigation Interest in the
Brownsville Judgment, which was awarded by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division,
against Americas Mining Corporation requiring it to return to
Asarco 260.09 million shares of common stock of Southern Copper
Corporation, together with past dividends received with
interest, with an aggregate value of over US$6 billion.
The Asbestos Litigation Interest in the Brownsville Judgment is
to be distributed for the benefit of all Asbestos Claimants. The
grant of put option would be subject to the approval and
consummation of the reorganization plan proposed by Asarco and
sponsored by Sterlite USA.
The put option is exercisable by the Asbestos Trust at any time
after the Effective Date through the end of the fourth year from
the Effective Date at the price of US$160 million less the
amount of any amounts received or recovered from the Asbestos
Litigation Interest prior to the exercise of the put option.
Mumbai, India-based Sterlite Industries (India) Limited produces
copper in India and specializes in manufacturing continuous-cast
copper rods. The Company operates two mines in Australia, but
its primary business is the operation of India's largest copper
smelting and refining plant.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shaw Action Filed on June 22 in Ohio County
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Billy Don Shaw and Lucille Shaw vs.
Travelcenters of America, LLC; et al was filed on June 22, 2009
in Ohio County, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.
Peter D. Friday, Esq., represents the plaintiffs in Case No. 09-
C-186. Judge Ronald E. Wilson is assigned the case.
Mr. Shaw was employed as a diesel mechanic at various premises
and times since 1970. He was exposed to fuel, fumes, asbestos,
acetone and other dangerous chemicals, during his employment. On
June 19, 2007, he was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the lungs
and lung disease.
Compensatory and punitive damages, in excess of US10 million,
are demanded.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10 Actions Filed in Ill. During June 15-19
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of June 15, 2009 through June 19, 2009, about 10
new asbestos lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.
These cases are:
-- (Case No. 09-L-645) Harry F. Anderson, who served in the U.S.
Navy, claims he developed mesothelioma. He says he also
worked as a punch press operator and welder. James F. Kelly,
Esq., and Jeffrey A.J. Millar, Esq., of Brent Coon and
Associates in St. Louis, represent Mr. Anderson.
-- (Case No. 09-L-648) Sid Deinema of Illinois, a mechanic,
laborer, bricklayer and operator, claims mesothelioma. Shane
F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in
East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Deinema.
-- (Case No. 09-L-647) Rick Dins of Wisconsin claims his
deceased father, Rudy Dins, developed mesothelioma after his
work as a gunner's mate for six months at the end of World
War II and as a laborer and carpenter until his retirement in
1984. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori,
Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Rick
Dins.
-- (Case No. 09-L-635) James Heal and Helen Heal claim Mr. Heal
developed mesothelioma after his work as a shoe worker,
service station attendant, printer, member of the U.S. Navy
and electrician. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A.
Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., represent
the Heals.
-- (Case No. 09-L-634) Jimmy Martin Sr. and Theresa Lynn Martin
claims Mr. Martin developed mesothelioma after his work as a
pipefitter, boilermaker and welder. He says he also performed
home remodeling jobs and automotive brake jobs. Randy L.
Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
Ill., represents the Martins. W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick
N. Haines, Esq., W. Casey Harris, Esq., and M. Clay Fostel,
Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will serve of
counsel.
-- (Case No. 09-L-640) George Edward Nichols and Susan Jane
Nichols claim Mr. Nichols developed mesothelioma after his
work as a laborer and a crane operator. Randy L. Gori, Esq.,
of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will be
representing the Nichols couple. W. Mark Lanier, Esq.,
Patrick N. Haines, Esq., C. Taylor Campbell, Esq., J.D.
McMullen, Esq., and William H. Barfield, Esq., of The Lanier
Law Firm in Houston will serve of counsel.
-- (Case No. 09-L-638) Barbara Jean Olson of Minnesota claims
her deceased husband, Clarence R. Olson, developed lung
cancer after his work as a pipefitter. Elizabeth V. Heller,
Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the
Olsons.
-- (Case No. 09-L-630) Dwayne Schlecht and Shirley Schlecht of
Colorado claim Mr. Schlecht developed mesothelioma after his
work as a sheet metal worker. Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq.,
Melissa C. Schopfes, Esq., and Taylor L. Kerns, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent the Schlechts.
-- (Case No. 09-L-639) Betty White of Oklahoma claims her
deceased husband, Neil White, developed mesothelioma after
his work as a mechanic, electrician, operator, laborer, and
heavy equipment operator. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M.
Dix, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
Mrs. White.
-- (Case No. 09-L-644) David L. Woolwine and Penny S. Woolwine
of Indiana claim Mr. Woolwine developed mesothelioma after
his work as a service station worker and foundry worker.
Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of
Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., represent the Woolwines.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fife Council Fined GBP10T for Safety Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
At Dunfermline Sheriff Court, on July 9, 2009, Fife Council was
fined GBP10,000 for asbestos-related safety breaches, according
to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated July 9,
2009.
The Council pleaded guilty to a charge under section 3(1) of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. A contractor, ECG
Building Maintenance Ltd was fined GBP3,700 after pleading
guilty to charges under sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and
Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
On July 9, 2009, the HSE warned property owners to ensure that
they keep accurate records of asbestos in their buildings and
pass any information on to contractors.
The warning follows a serious incident in which contracted
workers as well as members of the public were exposed to
airborne asbestos fibers as a result of refurbishment work in
council properties in Fraser Avenue, Inverkeithing, Fife,
Scotland, in November 2007.
Fife Council contracted ECG Building Maintenance to replace
water storage tanks within the communal loft areas of properties
in Fraser Avenue and adjoining areas. Some of these tanks were
insulated with asbestos.
ECG Building Maintenance was not licensed by HSE to remove
asbestos nor were they competent to do the work. Their workers
had not been adequately trained so did not recognize the
presence of asbestos, or the risks posed by it. They also failed
to implement established control measures to minimize the
exposure to themselves as well as to other people in the
vicinity.
HSE inspector Alastair Brown commented after the case, "Fife
Council failed to keep an understandable register of asbestos
and failed to ensure that a full survey for asbestos was carried
out prior to any work starting, so the information available was
not sufficient to alert persons to the immediate danger from the
asbestos prior to the work beginning."
In October 2008, HSE ran a campaign "Asbestos - the hidden
killer" which highlighted the fact that 20 tradesmen are dying
every week from asbestos related diseases.
The purpose of the campaign was to increase the awareness among
tradesmen, like those involved in this incident, and their
employers of the risks from exposure to asbestos.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at Kansas City's Citadel Plaza
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos was discovered at the Citadel Plaza in Kansas City,
Mo., in which the problem is severe that even mowing the grass
may pose a public health risk, Mesothelioma.com reports.
Kansas City officials plan to develop the area, but the presence
of asbestos has complicated their plans. Removing asbestos is
often costly. The City Council met to debate the future of the
development project, which many hope can be redeveloped into a
prosperous shopping center.
In June 2006, state environmental officials accused the
developer, Community Development Corp., or illegally burying
tons of asbestos-laden debris at the site.
In December 2007, a settlement agreement was reached, and the
developer was ordered to clean up the asbestos. Asbestos cleanup
was expected to cost the company an estimated US$300,000. The
company was also ordered to spend US$100,000 on environmental
education projects and pay a US$50,000 penalty by December 2009.
However, locals say that due to cash flow issues, little work
has been accomplished. Bill Worley, of Kingston Environmental,
said, "Nothing has happened since that time because they haven't
had the money." Kingston will do the cleanup work.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gallien Action Filed v. 37 Firms on June 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lois C. Gallien, on behalf of the estate of Cecil R. Gallien,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against 37 defendant corporations in
Jefferson County District Court, Tex., on June 26, 2009, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.
Mrs. Gallien says Mr. Gallien already settled claims for a non-
malignant asbestos-related disease with at least one of the
defending companies. However, she filed the June 2009 complaint
because Mr. Gallien died from a different malignant asbestos-
related disease than what he was awarded money for.
When he was alive, Mr. Gallien worked as an operator, where he
was exposed to asbestos and asbestos containing products and
materials, according to the complaint.
The suit says the defending companies negligently failed to test
their products prior to their entrance into the stream of
commerce and sold products that were unreasonably dangerous.
They also failed to adequately warn of the dangers of asbestos
exposure and failed to provide adequate protection to Mr.
Gallien.
Mrs. Gallien seeks actual and exemplary damages, plus costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief the court deems
just.
Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., of Provost Umphrey Law Firm in
Beaumont, Tex., will be representing Mrs. Gallien.
Case No. B184-400 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson,
60th District Court.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DNR Seeks to Settle Asbestos Case for $70T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources offered to settle
out-of-court an asbestos issue with officials St. Louis County
fire district for US$70,000, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reports.
In a letter sent on July 7, 2009 from the DNR to Elbert Walton
Jr., Esq., an attorney for the Northeast Ambulance and Fire
Protection District, says inspections at the district's
administration building found several violations involving the
handling of asbestos and the blocking of inspectors.
The letter gave the district until July 21, 2009 to respond to
the settlement offer. If that deadline is not met, the DNR said
the matter would be referred to the attorney general.
Late in 2008, St. Louis County, state and federal authorities
began investigating complaints that fire district officials had
removed and disposed of tiles potentially containing asbestos
from the district's 5,488-square-foot building at 7100 Natural
Bridge Road, and then kicked out inspectors looking into the
allegations.
Mr. Walton responded with a letter dated June 30, 2009 that said
the district "generally denies each and every allegation," that
air-quality studies at the building revealed no asbestos fibers
in the building's air, and that the district "has a Fourth
Amendment right against unreasonable searches of its
administrative offices."
A response on July 8, 2009 to Mr. Walton from Steven Feeler,
chief of enforcement for the DNR's air pollution control
program, called Mr. Walton's arguments "without merit."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bill to Ban Hazard Filed in Phil. Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------
A bill that prohibits the importation, manufacture, processing,
use or distribution of asbestos was filed in Philippine Congress
sometime during the week of June 29, 2009 to July 3, 2009, The
Freeman reports.
House Bill 6544, or the Ban Asbestos Act of 2009, also seeks the
demolition of buildings containing asbestos, conduct of public
education, institutionalization of health and safety program,
and creation of an inter-agency technical advisory council.
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines Representative Raymond
C. Mendoza, the author of the bill, wants the Department of
Health to conduct a study on asbestos.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hastings Ex-Boxer's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest on July 1, 2009 heard that the death of former boxing
champion, 77-year-old William O'Rourke, of St Leonards,
Hastings, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the
Hastings & St Leonards Observer reports.
Mr. O'Rourke died of asbestos-related pneumonia on May 3, 2009
at St Augustines Nursing Home.
Dr. Ian Hawley, who carried out the post-mortem, told the
inquest that Mr. O'Rourke's left lung was suffering from a
malignant mesothelioma.
Mr. O'Rourke's daughter, Collette, said her father was involved
in the building of the Hollington estate in the 1950s working as
a scaffolder and laborer. One of his jobs included knocking down
prefabricated buildings which used asbestos. He also worked in
the Ponswood Industrial Estate from 1958 to 1960 where he worked
in a dusty environment.
From 1974 until 1987, Mr. O'Rourke and his late wife, Teresa,
ran Old Roar Children's Home. Collette said that she believed
her father was also exposed to asbestos at the children's home
as the boiler was insulated with it.
Mr. O'Rourke was born in Hastings and was well-known around
town. He served in Gibraltar during his National Service from
1950 to 1952 and became Army boxing champion. He was an
instructor at the West Hill Boy's Club, later becoming its life
president.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Mr. O'Rourke was chief
steward in charge of security at the Hastings Pier ballroom. He
was also in charge of entertainment for the London Irish
Association. He played his penny whistle in many of Hastings'
clubs and pubs.
Coroner Alan Craze recorded a verdict of death due to industrial
disease.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K.'s Prime Minister "Accused of Betrayal"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos victims, on July 9, 2009, accused Prime Minister Gordon
Brown of betrayal as it was revealed the United Kingdom
Government will do a U-turn over promises to help them, the
Mirror reports.
Senior Government sources admitted that campaigners pushing for
the right of pleural plaques sufferers to get payouts from
insurance firms would be "disappointed."
A Law Lords ruling says they cannot get insurance compensation
until they develop full-blown lung diseases and sometimes only
have weeks to live. Overturning that ruling is one demand of the
Mirror's Asbestos Timebomb campaign.
Mr. Brown has repeatedly promised justice for the workers but a
senior Government source said giving compensation payouts before
a disease develops would be crossing a line.
The senior Whitehall source added, "The problem is the Chief
Medical Officer and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee
have both concluded more firmly than ever before that pleural
plaques are not harmful.
"They have both advised us against restoring compensation. That
makes it much harder to overturn the Lords ruling. But we want
to do as much as we can to help people who are suffering or who
are likely to suffer from exposure to asbestos."
The Government is expected to offer pleural plaques victims
GBP5,000 payments, funded by the taxpayer, instead of
compensation from insurance companies.
An online research center into asbestos-related diseases is also
expected to be set up.
However, Alan Ritchie of builders' workers union UCATT said,
"This is a complete betrayal of working-class people.
Compensation for pleural plaques is not only about the medical
evidence. The point is that workers were negligently exposed to
asbestos, have been told that their lungs have been damaged as a
result of that exposure and now have to live with the fear of
developing a fatal asbestos disease."
Tony Whiston of the Manchester Asbestos Support Group said,
"It's disastrous news. It's a windfall for insurers. If the
Government refuses to change the law it must look at other means
to compensate sufferers."
The GBP5,000 payments are expected to go to all 6,500 pleural
plaques victims whose cases are on hold. However, there will be
no compensation paid to anyone who develops pleural plaques in
future.
Earlier in 2009, Mr. Brown promised legal action. He said,
"Asbestosis is a terrible disease. Those who suffer it deserve
the best help from public authorities."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs Ruling in John Crane Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division,
affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County, in
asbestos insurance litigation involving John Crane Inc.
Judges Michael P. Toomin, Fitzgerald Smith, and O'Mara Frossard
entered judgment in Case Nos. 1-08-1845, 1-08-1918, 1-08-2057 on
May 22, 2009.
Crane appealed from the grant of a preliminary injunction
enjoining it from engaging in any other litigation in any forum
related to insurance coverage for asbestos claims against Crane.
Certain defendants also appealed the trial court's denial of
their motion to extend the injunction through all appeals in
this proceeding.
Since 1979, Crane has been named as a defendant in over 250,000
underlying claims that allege liability for personal injuries
sustained by claimants as a result of their exposure to Crane's
asbestos-containing products.
Crane and its primary insurers, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty
Company and American Motorists Insurance Company (Kemper), paid
hundreds of millions of dollars in defense and indemnity of
those suits.
Crane commenced this declaratory judgment action in May 2004,
against Kemper and its umbrella and excess carriers to determine
coverage obligations under their respective policies. In 2004,
Crane entered into an agreement concerning coverage with Kemper.
In 2006, Crane also entered into a second settlement agreement
with Kemper.
In its ruling of April 12, 2006, the circuit court determined
that all of the underlying claims constituted a single
occurrence arising from the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of Crane's asbestos products. Crane then filed five actions in
California, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The CNA defendants moved for a temporary restraining order
against Crane on May 15, 2008, which was joined by other
defendants. However, the parties entered into an agreed
standstill order effective May 19, 2008 through June 4, 2008,
while unsuccessfully engaging in court-ordered mediation. On
June 4, 2008, the circuit court issued the temporary restraining
order (TRO). Crane then sought interlocutory review, which the
Appeal Court denied.
Defendants (except Century Indemnity Company and International
Insurance Company) next moved for a preliminary injunction. The
court granted the preliminary injunction. Various defendants
then moved to extend the preliminary injunction through all
appeals in this proceeding, which the court denied.
Crane appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction, while
the CNA defendants and certain defendants appealed the court's
ruling refusing to extend the duration of the preliminary
injunction through the resolution of all appeals in this
proceeding. On Aug. 5, 2008, the Appeal Court consolidated all
appeals.
Oral argument was heard on March 10, 2009. The Appeal Court
granted the motion of certain defendants, with which Crane
agreed, to take judicial notice of the circuit court's order and
of the fact that the preliminary injunction would terminate on
April 9, 2009.
The Appeal Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of the
preliminary injunction and denial of defendants' motion to
extend the injunction through all appeals in this case.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Affirms Ruling in Dunkel Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Kentucky upheld the ruling of the Court of
Appeals, Marshall Circuit Court, which denied Larry J. Dunkel's
petition for a writ of prohibition in an asbestos case filed
against Arkema, Inc.; Big Rivers Electric Company; and Goodrich
Corporation.
The case is styled Larry J. Dunkel, Executor for the Estate of
Kathleen A. Dunkel, Deceased, Appellant v. Hon. Charles W.
Boetler, Jr., Judge Marshall Circuit Court, Appellee and Arkema,
Inc.; Big Rivers Electric Company; and Goodrich Corporation,
Real Parties In Interest.
Judgment was entered in Case No. 2008-SC-000223-MR on May 21,
2009.
Larry Dunkel, as Executor for the Estate of Kathleen A. Dunkel,
filed suit in 2006 claiming that Kathleen Dunkel contracted
malignant mesothelioma as the result of asbestos exposure.
Kathleen Dunkel alleged that she was exposed to asbestos when
she would beat and wash the work clothing of her late husband,
Ralph Dunkel, who had worked as an insulator at various
locations in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio during a 40-year
career.
Ralph Dunkel died in 2000. Kathleen Dunkel was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in 2005 and later died during the pendency of this
case. Her estate had been substituted as a party.
Larry Dunkel filed the complaint against the Real Parties in
Interest: Arkema, Goodrich, Big Rivers, and others. With the
complaint, Larry Dunkel filed the first "Interrogatories,
Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for
Admissions" (the initial discovery request) and served this upon
Arkema, Goodrich, and Big Rivers.
Arkema, Goodrich, and Big Rivers each objected to Larry Dunkel's
initial discovery request. Following several motions and
hearings, the trial court eventually issued a series of orders
regarding discovery.
On Aug. 23, 2006, the trial court ordered Larry Dunkel to more
narrowly tailor the initial discovery request with respect to
Big Rivers as to time and location. The trial court also ordered
that Goodrich and Arkema would not be required to supplement
their responses to the initial discovery request until such time
as Larry Dunkel presented evidence that Ralph Dunkel had worked
at a Goodrich and/or Arkema facility.
Discovery proceeded and Larry Dunkel served a second
"Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and
Requests for Admissions" (the second discovery request) on
Arkema, Goodrich, and Big Rivers.
Arkema again objected and sought a protective order. On Feb. 27,
2007, the trial court granted the protective order, directing
Arkema to answer a small portion of the second discovery
request, and with respect to the time period of 1950 to 1954.
Larry Dunkel was precluded from further discovery until
subsequent order of the court.
Larry Dunkel then sought a writ of prohibition from the Court of
Appeals, asking that the trial court be compelled to set aside
its Aug. 23, 2007 Feb. 27, 2007 orders and allow discovery to
proceed. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and this
appeal followed.
Kenneth L. Sales, Esq., Joseph Donald Satterley, Esq., Paul
Jason Kelley, Esq., Rickie A. Johnson, Esq., of Sales, Tillman,
Wallbaum, Catlett & Satterley in Louisville, Ky., represented
Larry Dunkel.
Rosemary D. Welsh, Esq., of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP
in Cincinnati, Ohio, represented Goodrich Corporation.
Byron N. Miller, Esq., Adam Benjamin Shadburne, Esq., of
Thompson, Miller & Simpson, PLC, in Louisville, Ky., represented
Arkema, Inc.
James Douglas Harris, Jr., Esq., Michael Scott Vitale, Esq., of
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP, in Bowling Green, Ky., Sara
Christine Veeneman, Esq., Deborah H. Patterson, Esq., of Wyatt,
Tarrant & Combs, LLP in Louisville, Ky., represented Big Rivers
Electric Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Denies Will's Testimony Petition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, denied
Patrick Will's Verified Petition for Order to Perpetuate
Testimony in a case involving asbestos styled Patrick Will,
Petitioner v. United States of America, Respondent.
District Judge J. Phil Gilbert entered judgment in Case No. 09-
mc-7-JPG on June 1, 2009.
This matter came before the Court on Patrick Will's Verified
Petition for Order to Perpetuate Testimony. He contended that he
anticipated filing suit against the United States, under the
Federal Tort Claims Act, for damages resulting from the presence
of asbestos at the Veterans' Administration medical facility in
Marion, Ill., where his spouse worked.
Mr. Will wanted to depose the custodian of records for the
Veterans' Administration and the custodian of records for the
General Services Administration. He wanted the custodians of
records to provide him with documentary information "listing all
employees, non-employees, contractors, and others who may have
knowledge of the exposure to asbestos and/or other dangerous
substances at the Marion VA medical facility."
Because Mr. Will's Petition was not aimed at perpetuating the
testimony of the deponents named in the Petition, it did not
meet the requirements of Rule 27. Accordingly, the Court denied
the Verified Petition for Order to Perpetuate Testimony.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Strike Granted in Medeiros Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut granted plaintiffs' motion to
strike the eighth count in a case involving asbestos styled
James Medeiros et al. v. John J. Febles et al.
Judge John W. Pickard entered judgment in Case No.
LICV085004801S on May 4, 2009.
This action included a count against a home inspection company
for (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act) CUTPA violations.
This motion to strike challenged the sufficiency of the
allegations in that count. The motion to strike was granted.
In May 2008, James Medeiros and Shaheen Choonavala engaged the
defendant, Ernest O. Belmont, Inc. (d/b/a Arrow Home Inspection
Co. [Arrow]), to perform a home inspection of residential
property in New Milford, Conn.
Ernest O. Belmont performed the home inspection on May 17, 2008
and issued a report of the same date. After taking possession of
the property, the plaintiffs found that the following items were
present which were not included in the inspection report: two
chimneys required rebuilding, there were bats in the attic,
there was a leak in the upstairs bathroom, there was asbestos in
the family room and there was an underground fuel tank.
The defendants are in the business of performing home
inspections and charged the plaintiffs a fee for the report.
The plaintiffs relied upon the home inspection report in
purchasing the property. They alleged that the defendants were
not qualified to render the opinions in the report and that they
failed to identify numerous problems with the property. They
alleged that they have suffered a financial loss in excess of
US$150,000.
The motion to strike the eighth count was granted.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Upholds Ruling in Lunsford Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc, affirmed the Court of
Appeals' ruling, which favored Ronald Lunsford in an asbestos
case filed against Saberhagen Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled Ronald Lunsford and Esther Lunsford,
Respondents v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. and First Doe through
One Hundredth Doe, Petitioners.
Judges Mary Fairhurst, Susan Owens, Charles W. Johnson, Richard
B. Sanders, Debra L. Stephens, Tom Chambers, Gerry L. Alexander,
James M. Johnson, and Barbara Madsen entered judgment in Case
No. 80728-1 on June 4, 2009.
Ronald Lunsford suffers from mesothelioma as a result of his
exposure to asbestos over a 29-year period, including non-
occupational exposure through his father, Oakley Lunsford, from
1948 to 1965.
Oakley Lunsford worked as an insulator at a Texaco refinery in
Anacortes, Wash., during the summer of 1958, where he worked
with asbestos insulation products supplied by The Brower
Company. Ronald Lunsford claimed he was exposed to asbestos
fibers Oakley Lunsford brought home on his clothing and tools.
Ronald Lunsford alleged causes of action in negligence and
strict product liability against Saberhagen as Brower's
successor in interest. Saberhagen first moved for partial
summary judgment on Ronald Lunsford's strict product liability
claim in King County Superior Court.
The trial court granted Saberhagen's motion for summary
judgment. The Court of Appeals overturned the trial court.
On remand, Saberhagen sought partial summary judgment on Ronald
Lunsford's strict product liability claims a second time. The
trial court agreed and dismissed Ronald Lunsford's strict
product liability claims. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Saberhagen asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of
Appeals. It claimed the Court of Appeals opinion conflicted with
this court's decisions.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held the
trial court erred by dismissing Ronald Lunsford's strict product
liability claims against Saberhagen. The Supreme Court remanded
for further proceedings.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Affirmed in Nelson Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, affirmed the
judgment of the Circuit Court of Kane County, which granted
summary judgment in favor of Aurora Equipment Company, in an
asbestos case filed by Vernon Nelson and John Q. Nelson on
behalf of Eva Nelson.
Judges Kathryn E. Zenoff, Robert McLaren, and Susan F.
Hutchinson entered judgment in Case No. 2-08-0186 on May 29,
2009.
Eva Nelson was married to Vernon Nelson and was John Nelson's
mother. Vernon Nelson was employed by Aurora in Aurora, Ill.,
from 1968 to 1987, and John Nelson was employed by Aurora from
1977 to 1993.
Aurora painted, packaged, and sold steel manufactured items. Eva
Nelson was never employed by Aurora and did not encounter any
condition on Aurora's premises as a result of being an entrant
onto those premises.
According to plaintiffs' third amended complaint, Vernon Nelson
and John Nelson were exposed to asbestos at Aurora's facility,
and those fibers and dust attached themselves to Vernon Nelson
and John Nelson's work clothing, which they wore home.
Plaintiffs alleged that Eva Nelson was around Vernon Nelson when
he was wearing the contaminated clothing and that she washed the
clothes and breathed in the asbestos fibers and dust, thus
becoming exposed. Plaintiffs alleged that, as a direct and
proximate result of her exposure to asbestos from Aurora's
facility, Eva Nelson was stricken with mesothelioma and colon
cancer, which caused her death on Jan. 9, 2004.
Plaintiffs also alleged that Eva Nelson was exposed elsewhere,
but this appeal concerned only the complaint against Aurora.
On July 9, 2007, Aurora filed a motion for summary judgment. The
trial court granted the motion for summary judgment on Nov. 13,
2007. On Feb. 5, 2008, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion
to reconsider. This appeal followed.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs Board's Ruling in Gonzales
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the Board
of Veterans' Appeals' ruling, which denied Eric J. Gonzales
service connection for residuals of an eye injury and for a
breathing/lung disability, including as a result of asbestos or
benzene exposure.
The Board also denied entitlement to compensation for residuals
of a bilateral eye injury.
The case is styled Eric J. Gonzales, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
Judge William A. Moorman entered judgment in Case No. 07-3487 on
June 3, 2009.
Mr. Gonzales served on active duty from July 1979 to July 1983.
His service medical records indicated that in May 1980, he was
struck in the left eye with a stick and, as a result, was
diagnosed as having a corneal abrasion and a contusion to the
upper and lower eyelid.
In July 2003, Mr. Gonzales filed a claim for service connection
for an eye injury that he sustained between February 1980 and
May 1980. In February 2004, he filed a claim for service
connection for breathing problems and coughing. In September
2004, he underwent a VA eye examination, general medical
examination, and neurological disorders examination.
In December 2005, Mr. Gonzales filed a claim for compensation
for an eye injury as a result of a March 2005 incident. In June
2006, he underwent an additional VA eye examination. In July
2006, the RO denied Mr. Gonzales' claim for compensation. In
August 2007, the Board issued the decision here on appeal.
The Board's Aug. 17, 2007 decision was affirmed.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court OKs Dismissals of Wurth & Carman
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the ruling of the
McCracken Circuit Court, which dismissed separate asbestos
claims filed by Albert Wurth and James T. Carman against
Illinois Central Railroad Company.
The cases are styled Albert Wurth, Appellant v. Illinois Central
Railroad Company, Appellee and James T. Carman, Appellant v.
Illinois Central Railroad Company, Appellee.
Judges Combs, Thompson, and David C. Buckingham entered judgment
in Case Nos. 2008-CA-000907-MR and 2008-CA-000908-MR on June 5,
2009.
On Aug. 2, 1999, Mr. Wurth and Mr. Carman filed personal injury
actions against the Railroad. In their complaints, they alleged
that during their employment with the Railroad, each of them had
been exposed to unsafe levels of toxic substances, including
asbestos, asbestos-containing materials, and diesel exhaust,
that had caused each of them to contract asbestosis.
The Railroad filed requests for discovery, which were served on
Sept. 24, 1999. On Jan. 3, 2001, the Railroad filed motions for
orders compelling discovery. On Jan. 12, 2001, the trial court
ordered Mr. Carman and Mr. Wurth to respond to the discovery
requests by Jan. 31, 2001. Neither filed a response to the
discovery requests.
On Sept. 25, 2002, the Railroad filed a motion to dismiss the
actions for failure of the plaintiffs to comply with the trial
court's order compelling discovery. The plaintiffs' responses to
discovery were then filed with the court within a matter of
days. In December 2002, the trial court denied the Railroad's
motions to dismiss the actions. In April 2003, the plaintiffs
each filed motions to compel.
On May 17, 2005, the court denied the Railroad's motions to
dismiss and ordered a status conference to be conducted on June
21, 2005.
On Jan. 25, 2008, the Railroad filed its second motion to
dismiss for lack of prosecution. On Feb. 8, 2008, Mr. Wurth and
Mr. Carman filed separate responses to the motion to dismiss.
On April 11, 2008, the Railroad's third motion to dismiss for
failure to prosecute was granted by the trial court. These
appeals followed. The Appeals Court affirmed the order and
judgment of the McCracken Circuit Court.
James W. Owens, Esq., in Paducah, Ky., represented Albert Wurth
and James T. Carman.
L. Miller Grumley, Esq., Jonathan Freed, Esq., in Paducah, Ky.,
Thomas R. Peters, Esq., Mark R. Kurz, Esq., David B.
Schneidewind, Esq., in Belleville, Ill., represented Illinois
Central Railroad Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Werts Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas, which granted three evidentiary rulings that preceded a
jury verdict in favor of John Crane, Inc., in an asbestos case
filed by Betty Werts on behalf of Ronald Werts.
The case is styled Betty Werts, Individually and as Executrix of
The Estate of Ronald Werts, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Goodyear Tire
and Rubber Co., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges Mary Kilbane, Ann Dyke, and Frank D. Celebrezze entered
judgment in Case No. 91403 on June 4, 2009.
On May 10, 2007, Mrs. Werts filed her second amended complaint
in which she alleged various products liability and negligence
theories for the wrongful death of her husband, Mr. Werts, who
succumbed to pleural mesothelioma on Jan. 22, 2007.
On Jan. 7, 2008, the case proceeded to trial. The parties
stipulated that Mr. Werts had been exposed to more than 40
asbestos-containing products from more than 40 entities,
including gaskets and packing supplied by John Crane.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that Mr. Werts
had in fact been exposed to gaskets and packing supplied by John
Crane at some point during his working career, which spanned the
years 1953 through 1980, but that such exposure was not a
substantial factor in causing the cancer which led to his death.
This appeal followed.
John D. Mismas, Esq., Thomas W. Bevan, Esq., Patrick M. Walsh,
Esq., of Bevan and Associates, LPA, Inc. in Northfield, Ohio,
represented Betty Werts.
Richard D. Schuster, Esq., of Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease in
Columbus, Ohio, represented The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.
Stephen H. Daniels, Esq., of Evan J. Palik McMahon DeGulis LLP
in Cleveland, Ohio, Michael A. Pollard, Esq., of Baker &
McKenzie in Chicago, represented John Crane, Inc.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Denies Bid in Travelers Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New
York, denied a Motion seeking leave to supplement record, in an
asbestos case filed by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company.
The case was filed against Honeywell International, Inc.,
Defendant-Respondent, American Re-Insurance Company, et al.,
Defendants, Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Judges Richard T. Andrias, John T. Buckley, Karla Moskowitz,
Leland G. DeGrasse, and Rosalyn H. Richter entered judgment in
the case on June 4, 2009.
Helena Almeida, Esq., of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in New
York, represented Travelers Casualty and Surety Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Charges v. Nova Partners Dismissed July 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecutors from the California State Attorney General's Office,
on July 13, 2009, agreed in Monterey County Superior Court to
dismiss two asbestos-related misdemeanor charges against Nova
Partners Inc. as part of a plea agreement entered into in
January 2007, The Monterey County Herald reports.
As part of the deal, Nova Partners, which still faces civil
lawsuits in connection with the Salinas Courthouse project,
admitted no fault or liability in the case but agreed to a
series of conditions.
Nova also paid US$193,394 to cover the costs of an investigation
into the Company's actions, but paid no fines. If Nova had not
adhered to the terms of the deal over the intervening 30-month
probation period, the Company could have faced a maximum fine of
US$200,000.
The Company agreed to the plea deal as jury selection was about
to begin in the case. Prosecutors had filed three felony and
three misdemeanor charges alleging Nova endangered the lives of
the public and employees who worked in the courthouse building.
In exchange, the Attorney General agreed not to pursue civil
action against Nova, as it had against Nova's co-defendant
Skanska USA Building.
According to a status report filed with the court by Nova
President Robert McIntyre, the Company had reviewed and updated
its policy for projects involving "hazardous material
abatement," and sent its employees on a four-hour "asbestos
general awareness and regulatory overview" training seminar. He
said the Company's construction management employees took annual
refresher courses on hazardous materials regulations and laws.
Visiting Judge Barry Hammer, of San Luis Obispo County, heard
the case.
The county hired Nova and Skanska, the project's construction
manager, in 2002 and 2003 to modernize the north wing. The two
companies, along with project managers Seth Henderson of Nova
and Anthony Jones, formerly of Skanska, were charged in February
2006 with 13 criminal counts.
The defendants were accused of ignoring warnings and allowing
work crews to tear through a second-story concrete floor of the
north wing during the renovation work in 2005, knocking asbestos
into a space above the first-floor ceiling linked to the
ventilation system for the building.
After asbestos forced repeated closures of the north wing, it
was finally closed and operations moved to temporary, portable
buildings nearby.
Skanska was ultimately fined US$750,000 in November 2006 after
pleading no contest to four misdemeanor charges, but those were
dismissed after a one-year probation period. Charges against Mr.
Henderson and Mr. Jones were dismissed as part of the plea
deals.
Meanwhile, the project's cost has ballooned from an initial
estimate of about US$3 million to US$63 million, largely due to
cost overruns related to asbestos remediation. It is expected to
be completed by December 2009, more than five years after it
began. Turner Construction has taken over the project.
Earlier in 2009, the county filed suit against Nova and Skanska,
alleging breach of contract and negligence in connection with
their work on the courthouse project. The suit asks the court to
order the companies to pay millions to defray the additional
costs as a result of the asbestos contamination.
At the same time, a personal-injury lawsuit involving nearly 200
courthouse employees and others who allege they were exposed to
asbestos and other hazardous materials during the project is
proceeding. A trial is scheduled to begin on Nov. 20, 2009.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Broughal Middle School Slated for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
A five-week asbestos abatement project is scheduled for the
Broughal Middle School in Bethlehem, Pa., in anticipation of
demolishing the old building in August 2009, The Express-Times
reports.
The cleanup was set to commence on July 13, 2009. The Bethlehem
Area School District has approval to tear down the school to
make way for athletic fields.
The school board invited anyone interested in buying the
building to come forward, but most directors said they were
unwilling to incur additional costs or miss the July 13, 2009
project start date.
The asbestos abatement, demolition and field construction is
expected to cost US$3.6 million.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WWU Building Closed July 13 Due to Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 13, 2009, Western Washington University's Humanities
Building in Bellingham, Wash., was evacuated and closed due to
the possible release of asbestos in the air, The Bellingham
Herald reports.
According to Gayle Shipley, director of WWU's Environmental
Health and Safety department, while doing renovation work around
9:30 a.m., a contractor removed an asbestos-contaminated piece
of ceiling on the second floor.
The ceiling piece was not properly bagged and sealed before
being hauled from the building, possibly causing asbestos
exposure to the rest of the building.
Cleanup contractors and consultants were on scene on July 13,
2009 to assess the situation and clean up. Final air samples,
which will determine if more work needs to be done, were
scheduled to be taken on the evening of July 13, 2009.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pier 70 in San Francisco in Need of Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco city officials hope to secure funding to renovate
Pier 70, remove asbestos, and develop the area, Mesothelioma.com
reports.
About 50 acres of prime waterfront property makes up Pier 70,
which is located south of the Mission Bay area. Developers hope
to clean up the area and eventually build a new museum, retail
space, offices, and restaurants.
About 20 historic buildings need to be renovated and repaired,
totaling about 3 million square feet of space.
David Beaupre, the Port of San Francisco's manager for the
project, hopes that the renovation of Pier 70 can reinvigorate
the local economy. The area will cost upwards of US$635 million
to prepare the land for new construction.
Pier 70 has some problems, including polluted soil and asbestos
in many of the buildings at the site. It will cost about US$70
million to clean up these issues.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former Staunton School Slated for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The building that was once the Robert E. Lee High School in
Staunton, Va., is earmarked for asbestos removal and renovation,
Mesothelioma.com reports.
Gypsy Hill Place LLC purchased the structure in June 2008.
Gypsy Hill Place is the name of the project that will replace
the former school. The development will soon be home to the
ShenanArts theater organization, the Valley Program for Aging
Services' senior center, and 62 apartments for independent
senior living.
Sean Dougherty of Octagon Partners is developing the site. The
Charlottesville, Va.-based developer told reporters that because
the former school is a historic building, the development
process has been especially complicated.
Octagon Partners will host an official groundbreaking at the
site on July 31, 2009 to kick off the construction project.
Mr. Dougherty said that Octagon has begun to install temporary
electrical and plumbing systems. This will be integral to
facilitating the construction process prior to asbestos
abatement and other interior renovations.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenant to Sue Southwark Council Over Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Connelly plans to sue Southwark Council following the
discovery of asbestos in her home in Southwark, London, BBC News
reports.
The 44-year-old Ms. Connelly is spearheading a change in the
law, which would make it compulsory for tenants to be informed
of any asbestos in their homes.
Ms. Connelly has been battling to be re-housed by Southwark
Council for more than two years after workmen found asbestos in
her Rotherhithe home in March 2007. The Council said it had
commissioned a survey on asbestos in its buildings.
However, the authority admitted there would be restrictions on
how much information would be released.
Ms. Connelly, who moved into her one-bedroom flat on the
Silverlake Estate on the New Rotherhithe Road in December 2005,
said a change in legislation would provide safety for residents.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Unite Sees Claims Upheld by U.K. Government
----------------------------------------------------------------
The intervention of Unite - the Union sees the United Kingdom
Government put in to place legislation on July 13, 2009 that
will benefit hundreds of sufferers of mesothelioma, according to
a Unite press release dated July 13, 2009.
The people affected were exposed to asbestos by Turner & Newall
(T&N), the U.K.'s largest asbestos company which went into
administration in 2001.
Derek Simpson, Unite joint general secretary, said, "We are
delighted that the government has put this right. Had it not
been for Unite's prompt intervention this problem would have
remained unchecked to the disadvantage of many mesothelioma
sufferers and their families.
"This decision will benefit our members and countless other T&N
asbestos victims who have suffered serious pain and loss of
life, and it will aid their families who have to care for them."
The former secretary of state, John Hutton, exempted T&N's
claims from compensation recovery provisions of the Social
Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997. This was because
Federal Mogul Corp.'s (T&N's new owners) Chapter 11 bankruptcy
exit plan resulted in T&N asbestos claimants receiving a small
fraction of their entitlement to compensation, in many cases as
little as 17 percent. This exemption came in to force in 2006.
At that time, it was also understood that T&N claimants were
entitled to the state payment under the Pneumoconiosis 1979 Act.
It was further understood that the sum of both payments fell
well short of the total amount claimants should have received.
The government gave a clear intention not to penalize T&N
claimants twice.
Unite the union with Terry Rooney MP acted to bring to the
attention of the government a consequence of the Child
Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 and related legislation,
which ran contrary to an agreement the union had brokered in
2006 to exempt T&N victims from the requirement to repay DWP
benefits from their compensation.
Due to the uniqueness of the T&N asbestos victims' position,
special measures were needed to ensure that they were not
unfairly penalized under the new legislation.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: O'Hern Family Exposed to Asbestos in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Sherene O'Hern was exposed to asbestos in their
home in Minnesota, WiredPRNews.com reports.
As reported by The Star Tribune, the duplex in which the O'Hern
family lived was subjected to emergency asbestos cleanup and a
state health department investigation following the
contamination.
The O'Herns was forced to throw away many of their possessions
due to their possibly containing asbestos fibers, which combined
with other expenses cost them thousands of dollars.
The family has now reportedly been left with uncertainty about
whether they will be able to recoup any of the money they have
lost due to the mistakes of workers. The family is also faced
with uncertainty on their future health due to the exposure.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Junks Review Bid in Crane Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court, on July 8, 2009, denied a review
bid for an asbestos liability case in which a Los Angeles judge
blasted the unnamed plaintiff's firm, Waters & Kraus, for
engaging in a "type of judicially sanctioned extortion," the
Legal Times reports.
The case involved a Los Angeles man who died of mesothelioma in
December 2007. Six months before his death, the man was deposed
in Texas, where the case was first filed.
Lawyers for one of the defendants, Crane Co., sought to exclude
the man's deposition because it was insufficient to meet the
stricter burden for obtaining summary judgment in California,
where the case had been re-filed.
On April 7, 2009, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz
refused to grant summary judgment but concluded that Waters &
Kraus has re-filed the case in California to force a settlement.
A state intermediate court of appeal denied a petition to review
the case.
Crane then filed a petition to the California Supreme Court.
The Washington Legal Foundation, in a June 25, 2009 letter to
that court, expressed concern about "the massive scope of
asbestos litigation faced by courts and litigants over the past
several decades" and urged the justices to address the conflict.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plan for TH Agriculture Confirmed on May 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York,
on May 28, 2009, issued an order confirming a Prepackaged Plan
of Reorganization of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.'s
subsidiary in the United States, TH Agriculture & Nutrition
L.L.C. (THAN).
THAN had commenced the bankruptcy proceeding on Nov. 24, 2008,
with the objective to resolve its pending and future asbestos
claims.
For the Plan to become effective, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York must affirm the Bankruptcy
Court's confirmation of the Plan, which will include resolving
an opposition that has been filed in respect of the bankruptcy
court's confirmation order.
Once effective, the Plan provides for an injunction that will
channel all pending and future THAN-related asbestos claims to
an asbestos personal injury trust that will assume, liquidate
and satisfy all those asbestos liabilities.
The trust will be funded with a contribution of US$900 million
(EUR644 million) by THAN and Philips Electronics North America
Corporation (PENAC). Depending on the timing and outcome of the
affirmation and appeal process in the U.S. District Court,
funding of the asbestos personal injury trust may occur in the
second half of 2009.
During the first half of 2009:
-- Costs of EUR8 million were incurred with respect to
litigation, claims administration, insurance recoveries, and
bankruptcy-related matters (EUR24 million was incurred in the
full year 2008 and EUR27 million in 2007).
-- Settlement agreements were reached with certain insurance
carriers resolving disputes relating to amounts payable to
PENAC and THAN in relation to THAN's asbestos liabilities,
resulting in the recognition of EUR61 million in recoveries.
(EUR89 million was recognized in the full year 2008 and EUR16
million in 2007).
-- Insurers paid out EUR4 million for asbestos-related defense
and indemnity costs. (EUR119 million was paid in the full
year 2008 and EUR27 million in 2007).
As of June 28, 2009, EUR123 million was jointly held by PENAC
and THAN in an insurance settlement proceeds trust for future
contribution to the asbestos personal injury trust.
Additionally, at June 28, 2009, the recorded receivable from
insurance carriers, with which settlement agreements have been
reached, amounted to EUR93 million (EUR34 million at Dec. 31,
2008).
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Royal Philips Electronics)
makes consumer electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVD players,
and fax machines. The Company also makes light bulbs, electric
shavers and other personal care appliances, picture tubes,
medical systems, and silicon systems solutions. The Company is
based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Reduces Reserve by $18M During 2nd-Qtr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation, during the second quarter of 2009, reduced its
asbestos reserves by US$18 million, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 15, 2009.
This reserve reduction is related to about 1,500 claims that
were deemed to have no medical merit and therefore have been
determined to have no value.
Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Corporation transports products
like coal, forest products, ethanol, automobiles, chemicals and
consumer electronics.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 18 Cases Filed in Ill. From June 29-July 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of June 29, 2009 to July 3, 2009, about 18 new
asbestos lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit Court,
Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.
These claims are:
-- (Case No. 09-L-699) Kathleen K. and Mark Anderson of Virginia
allege Mrs. Anderson developed mesothelioma after her work on
a family farm, where she operated farm equipment and helped
with daily chores. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian,
Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill.,
represent the Andersons.
-- (Case No. 09-L-691) Erick Applebet of Tennessee alleges his
deceased father, Percy Applebet, developed lung cancer after
his work as a laborer. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J.
Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will be representing Mr.
Applebet.
-- (Case No. 09-L-681) Edward Bundy of California, a farm hand,
musician, sandblaster, assistant manager, pug bill, truck
driver, stockman, manager, laborer, security guard and
assistant site manager, claims mesothelioma. T. Barton French
Jr., Esq., and Nate Mudd, Esq., of French and Mudd in St.
Louis will be representing Mr. Bundy.
-- (Case No. 09-L-679) Roger L. and Kathy W. Carter of Tennessee
claim Mr. Carter developed lung cancer after his work as a
millwright for Magnus Products and for Ford Motor Company.
Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
Ill., represent the Carters.
-- (Case No. 09-L-694) Roberta Compton of New Jersey claims her
deceased husband, Robert Compton, developed mesothelioma
after his work as a shipfitter, pipefitter and salesman.
Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind
M. Robertson, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represent Mrs. Compton.
-- (Case No. 09-L-686) Ralph Fry of Ohio, a laborer and welder,
claims mesothelioma. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., and Karoline
Carstens, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represent Mr. Fry.
-- (Case No. 09-L-680) Robert E. and Linnea Harris of Illinois
claims Mr. Harris developed mesothelioma after his work as a
machinist mate in the U.S. Navy, as an auxiliary operator, as
a health physicist, and as a supervisor. Elizabeth V. Heller,
Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the
Harrises.
-- (Case No. 09-L-698) Walter Gooden of Illinois, a sander,
punch operator, fork lift driver and welder, claims lung
cancer and asbestosis. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M.
Dix, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
Mr. Gooden.
-- (Case No. 09-L-693) John Jacobs of Arkansas, a plater,
laborer and construction worker, claims lung cancer. Robert
Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M.
Robertson, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represent Mr. Jacobs.
-- (Case No. 09-L-682) Lillian S. Johnson of Florida claims her
deceased husband, Charles E. Johnson, developed lung cancer
after his work as an audit clerk in the U.S. Army, in the
examining division of the bureau of engraving and printing,
in the Geography Division of the Bureau of Census, in the
Insurance Modification Division of the Federal Housing
Administration, as a computer operator in the D.C. Army
National Guard, as a technician at the Bureau of the Census,
and as supervisor of the Electornics Lab and Computer Lab in
the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and
Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Johnson.
-- (Case No. 09-L-697) Marlene Jones of Pennsylvania, a
psychiatric aide, claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq.,
Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Jones.
-- (Case No. 09-L-701) Howard Lawrence of North Carolina, an
electricians mate and salesman, alleges mesothelioma. Randy
S. Cohn, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represents Mr. Lawrence.
-- (Case No. 09-L-696) Monroe Newsome of Illinois, a coal miner
and laborer, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry
J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Newsome.
-- (Case No. 09-L-700) Larry A. Post of Nebraska, who worked for
the National Guard Reserves, as a steamfitter at Natkin
Service of Omaha, as a steamfitter at Siebler Heating, as a
steamfitter at City Wide Heating, and as a steamfitter at All
Seasons Heating, claims mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq.,
and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
Edwardsville, Ill. represent Mr. Post.
-- (Case No. 09-L-692) John C. Riley Jr. of California, a
custodian, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry
J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Riley.
-- (Case No. 09-L-687) Rosie Rogers of Alabama claims her
deceased father, Eddie Winston, developed mesothelioma after
his work as a pipefitter at Ingalls Shipyard. Elizabeth V.
Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill.,
represent Mrs. Rogers.
-- (Case No. 09-L-683) Kenneth and Judith Stockton of Texas
allege Mr. Stockton developed mesothelioma after his work as
an aircraft mechanic, as a truck and warehouse helper at
Carnation Milk, as a carpenter at Stauffer Chemical Company
and Shell Oil Company, as a laborer at various construction
sites, as an assistant manager, as a real estate investor, as
a laborer during the renovation of St. James Condominium, as
a mortgage banker at Ben G. McGuire and Co., as mortgage
banker at Stockton, Luedemann and French, and as a mortgage
banker at Northmarq Capital. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
Ill., represent the Stocktons.
-- (Case No. 09-L-695) Maurilio Ulteras of California, a
laborer, claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J.
Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Ulteras.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harrah's Sued for Exposing Worker to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernie Savannah sued his former employer, Harrah's Hotel and
Casino, in Las Vegas, for US$10 million for exposing him and his
three-year-old son, Nico, to asbestos at the resort, Fox 5 News
reports.
Mr. Savannah said Harrah's knew about the danger but failed to
protect its workers. He said, "I knew it was asbestos, and I
continued to work there because I needed the insurance and the
income for my family. And it's really hard to get an engineering
job, you know, that pays good wages."
An inspection at the resort shows 12 serious violations
including unprotected employees performing asbestos operations.
Mr. Savannah's medical reports detail asbestos exposure for him
and breathing problems for Nico. He said he thinks he brought
the fibers home, making his child sick.
Mr. Savannah said, "Every employee was affected -- every EVS
(housekeeping) worker, cocktail waitress, customer -- when we
didn't do the asbestos abatement. Everybody breathes those
fibers."
Several asbestos removal companies said they could not speak
directly to the lawsuit, but they all said if you are exposed to
asbestos, you can take it home and expose your loved ones as
well.
The lawsuit filed in federal court is pending.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cedar Falls Council to Pay $24T for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cedar Falls, Iowa, City Council, on July 13, 2009, voted to
pay US$24,045 to Affordable Hazards Removal Inc. to remove
asbestos at the former Dalton Plumbing and Heating building in
downtown Cedar Falls, wcfcourier.com reports.
The building at 222 State St. is set to be torn down in August
2009 and has tested positive for the hazardous material.
Ron Gaines, director of developmental services, said that
asbestos removal is required in order to secure federal dollars
for building demolition.
Asbestos removal also is required by the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources air quality division, which follows the
regulations set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Fire Chief John Schilling said, "There's no way around the law."
The city acquired the former Dalton building in 2002 and plans
to use the site as part of redevelopment along State Street.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former Mental Hospital in D.C. Has Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
All 62 buildings of the former St. Elizabeth's mental hospital
compound in Washington, D.C., contain asbestos, Mesothelioma.com
reports.
The site is located in the neighborhood of Anacostia, a short
walk from the green line Metro in Washington, D.C.
St. Elizabeth's opened in 1855 as a Quaker compound that catered
to the mentally ill. During the Civil War, the hospital expanded
to help treat soldiers who were traumatized during the conflict.
Later, St. Elizabeth's was later taken over as a general
"government hospital for the insane" by the Adjutant General's
Office in the Department of the Interior.
St. Elizabeth's may soon become the home for 14,000 Washington
employees who work for the Department of Homeland Security.
The Department of Health and Human Services, who acquired the
buildings, has passed it off to the General Services
Administration. GSA spokesman Mike McGill said, "It was reeking.
There were floors collapsing, wallpaper peeling off, and light
fixtures falling on the floor."
If the Department of Homeland Security moves in to St.
Elizabeth's, it may prove a boon to local business owners,
especially restaurateurs catering to the influx of government
workers. The asbestos removal and subsequent renovations would
also create several jobs.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DuBose Questions Plaintiff at Mock Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben DuBose, Esq., of DuBose Law Firm, PLLC, examined a plaintiff
in a mock trial at the HarrisMartin Asbestos Litigation
Conference on June 22, 2009 in Chicago, according to a DuBose
Law Firm press release dated July 14, 2009.
Mr. DuBose was a faculty member of the national asbestos
litigation conference. The conference provided a two-day study
in all phases of an asbestos trial - from jury selection to
verdict.
Mr. DuBose questioned the plaintiff before a mock trial 12
member jury panel. The jury used hand held devices to gauge
their reactions in real time to all of the witnesses and phases
of the mock trial.
Mr. DuBose said, "Sharing information that can assist other
attorneys who are fighting for justice on behalf of their
clients is rewarding. I've had the opportunity to help injured
victims and their families throughout my career and want to pass
that on."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: East London Marina Worker Gets Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed man who worked for 10 years at an East London Marina
repairing narrow boats has settled out-of-court an asbestos
claim for an undisclosed sum, the Practical Boat Owner reports.
The man claims that exposure to asbestos at work gave him
terminal lung cancer.
The 72-year-old grandfather of five, who was diagnosed in March
2008, recalls asbestos was present in around 70 percent of the
boats he repaired during his time at the yard from 1979 to 1989.
According to a press release by the man's solicitors, many boats
built prior to 1985 used asbestos products as insulation in the
heating systems, engine parts, pipe work and exhausts. The
firm's spokesman said, "If the asbestos is in poor condition or
is disturbed so that the fibers are inhaled the consequences can
be fatal with conditions like mesothelioma developing decades
later."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stone to Hear Hardie Tax Case in Sept. 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Margaret Stone of the Federal Court of Australia in New
South Wales is scheduled to hear a tax case involving asbestos
against James Hardie Industries N.V. in September 2009, The
Sydney Morning Herald reports.
Hardie's legal woes over asbestos compensation could help the
Australian Taxation Office in the trial of a US$368 million
dispute over a 1999 tax return.
At a pre-trial hearing in the Federal Court in July 15, 2009,
the ATO was given leave to issue subpoenas to gain access to
material produced to the 2004 special commission of inquiry into
Hardie's underfunding of asbestos compensation.
Justice Stone was told that the ATO and Hardie jointly asked the
NSW Supreme Court for access to evidence in the case against 10
former Hardie directors and executives over disclosure of
asbestos matters.
The dispute began in 2006 when the ATO issued an assessment to a
wholly owned subsidiary, RCI Pty Ltd, relating to its 1999
income.
The 2004 inquiry and the NSW Supreme Court case both focused on
the events leading up to 2001, when Hardie set up an asbestos
compensation trust and moved its headquarters to The
Netherlands. Hardie has consistently said the motive for the
move was to reduce tax, not to avoid liability for asbestos
compensation.
Hardie has paid the ATO AUD184 million, half the amount
allegedly owed by RCI.
The ATO's barrister, Jeffrey Hilton, SC, said on July 14, 2009
that he intended to issue subpoenas to three former James Hardie
executives, Phillip Morley, Stephen Harman and Donald Salter,
and to Hardie's longstanding tax adviser, PricewaterhouseCoopers
partner Tony Clemens.
Mr. Hilton said the four men would be asked to produce their
witness statements to the inquiry headed by David Jackson, QC.
Hardie's barrister, David Bloom, QC, asked Justice Stone to note
that the ATO was seeking documents "said to have been before the
Jackson inquiry, which was in 2004, which preceded the [RCI]
assessment by a couple of years."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chaddesden Students Reassured Over Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Students and staff at Lees Brook Community Sports College in
Chaddesden, England, where asbestos was detected in classrooms
have been told they have a "very low" chance of developing
potentially fatal chest conditions, the Derby Telegraph reports.
The "above-normal" levels of asbestos fibers were found in and
around cupboards at the school in October 2007. It was feared
that fibers could have been released from the cupboards at the
school for more than two decades.
The report by the Institute of Occupational Medicine says that
health risks as a result of the finds are "very low" "but not
zero."
The report was commissioned by Derby City Council after the
fibers were detected in the air from damaged asbestos panels in
cupboards, which were routinely being sealed up on the advice of
the Health and Safety Executive.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Milestone Charged for SUNY Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York state Department of Labor charged Milestone
Environmental for breaching asbestos-removal guidelines at
Shango residence hall and College Hall at the State University
of New York at New Paltz, the Times-Herald Record reports.
Milestone was charged with the same violations at another
college building in June 2009. The college, which was not cited
by the state, has been renovating these buildings during the
summer while students and faculty are on vacation.
According to college spokesman Eric Gullickson, the contractor
problem has already pushed completion deadlines past their
targeted dates. He said that after the June 2009 stop-order was
implemented, the college notified Milestone that any further
violations would result in the termination of their contract.
Mr. Gullickson said he was optimistic that the renovation work
could be completed in time for Moving-In Day, on Aug. 19, 2009.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Men Probed on Illegal Dumping in Essex
----------------------------------------------------------------
Environment Agency investigators questioned two employees of a
skip hire firm over illegal asbestos dumping in Essex, England,
the Echo reports.
The skip hire firm was believed to have been involved in
transporting one of the loads of asbestos dumped at a Thurrock
Council highways depot in Stanford-le-Hope.
The Agency is linking 11 separate dumping incidents (seven in
Thurrock, three in Hertfordshire and one in Kent) earlier in
2009.
Officers are keen to trace the owner or driver of a red and blue
skip lorry, registration P367 LOB, who they believe could help
with inquiries.
Officers earlier arrested an unnamed 49-year-man, from Laindon,
an employee of the same company, after an Echo investigation
found the asbestos dumped at Stanford came from renovations
carried out to a church in Neasden, North West London, which the
firm had been involved in the disposal of.
Premises in Basildon and Billericay were also searched.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Petition Granted in Valdez Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California,
granted a petition filed by Jose and Virginia Valdez in a case
filed against The Superior Court of San Diego County,
Respondent; Certainteed Corporation et al., Real Parties in
Interest.
Judges Patricia D. Benke, Richard D. Huffman, and Joan Irion
entered judgment in Case No. D055206 on June 9, 2009.
On Feb. 13, 2009, the Valdezes filed an action in the San Diego
County Superior Court for personal injury and loss of consortium
alleging that Mr. Valdez suffers from mesothelioma as a result
of his exposure to products containing asbestos supplied,
manufactured or used by defendants.
On April 23, 2009, after curing the defects in their original
motion, the Valdezes renewed a motion for trial preference based
on the unlikelihood of Mr. Valdez surviving another six months.
The court issued a tentative ruling granting the motion but
setting trial on Oct. 16, 2009.
In this petition, the Valdezes contended the court's compromise
trial date violated the requirement that trial be set within 120
days. The Appeal Court asked for a response. None of the
defendants opposed the petition.
All defendants except TC Construction Company, Inc. further
agreed to a trial within 120 days of the date of the motion
hearing on the condition that the Valdezes continue to stipulate
to shortened notice on any summary judgment motion and to assist
in expeditiously litigating the case, and the Appeal Court
permits the summary judgment motions to be heard within 30 days
of trial.
The Appeals Court ordered the trial court to vacate its May 22,
2009, order to the extent it set trial beyond the statutory 120-
day period, and entered an order setting trial within 120 days
of May 22, 2009.
Kelly Ann McMeekin, Esq., of Paul Hanley & Harley LLP in
Berkeley, Calif., represented Jose and Virginia Valdez.
William Jared Sayers, Esq., of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in
Los Angeles, Susan Moriarty Hack, Esq., of Higgs Fletcher & Mack
in San Diego, Calif., Helen M. Luetto, Esq., of Walsworth,
Franklin, Bevins & McCall in Orange, Calif., Robert C. Martinez,
Esq., of McDougal, Love, Eckis, Smith & Boehmer in San Diego,
represented the Real Parties in Interest.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Dismissal Denied in Lluerma
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County denied Owens-
Illinois, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, based on forum non
conveniens, an asbestos action filed by Manuel Letran Lluerma
and his wife Juana Bazuelo Ordiales.
The case is styled Manuel Letran Lluerma and Juana Bazuelo
Ordiales, his wife, Plaintiffs v. Owens Illinois Inc., et al,
Defendants.
Judge Mary M. Johnston entered judgment in Civil Action No. 04C-
09-122 ASB on June 11, 2009.
Mr. Lluerma is one of more than 50 Spanish citizens who worked
either on United States warships or in the Spanish shipyards
where those ships were docked. These workers alleged that they
were exposed to asbestos and contracted asbestos-related
diseases. The asbestos was manufactured in the United States.
On Sept. 15, 2004, Mr. Lluerma and Ms. Ordiales filed suit in
Delaware against Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Garlock, Inc.; and
Garlock Sealing Technologies, L.L.C. Shortly thereafter,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Garlock, Inc. and Garlock
Sealing Technologies, L.L.C., leaving Owens-Illinois (O-I) as
the sole defendant.
The complaint asserted that Mr. Lluerma contracted asbestosis
and other asbestos-related injuries as a result of exposure to
O-I's products while working as an insulator at the U.S. Naval
Base in Rota, Spain. Plaintiffs stated that Mr. Lluerma worked
as an employee for the U.S. Navy from 1958 until his retirement
in 1991. Plaintiffs asserted that Mr. Lluerma's exposure
occurred aboard American warships.
On May 20, 2005, O-I filed a motion to dismiss on forum non
conveniens grounds. O-I asserted that plaintiffs' claims lacked
any nexus with Delaware. O-I argued that because plaintiffs
lived and worked in Spain and the alleged exposure to asbestos
and medical treatment occurred in Spain, Spain was the proper
forum.
On Nov. 16, 2005, plaintiffs filed a response opposing the
motion to dismiss. On April 13, 2006, O-I withdrew its motion.
It reserved the right to re-file the motion to dismiss after
discovery was completed, as counsel and the Court had agreed at
the April 7, 2006 hearing.
On June 1, 2007, O-I renewed its motion to dismiss. On June 13,
2007, plaintiffs responded by adopting their previously-filed
response from Nov. 16, 2005. Thereafter, the parties agreed to a
briefing schedule.
On Nov. 1, 2007, O-I submitted its opening brief. Plaintiffs
filed their response on Dec. 17, 2007. On Feb. 19, 2008, O-I
filed its reply brief. The motion was noticed and rescheduled
several times. Ultimately, oral argument was heard on Feb. 19,
2009. The parties submitted additional information and argument
post-hearing.
Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq., of Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. in
Wilmington, Del., Mitchell S. Cohen, Esq., of Locks Law Firm in
Philadelphia, represented the Plaintiffs.
Paul A. Bradley, Esq., of Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, P.A.
in Wilmington, Del., represented Owens-Illinois, Inc.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling OK'd in Advanced Environmental
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Kings County, New York, issued split rulings
in a case involving asbestos, and concerning Advanced
Environmental Services and Raul Mora as parties.
Judge Bert A. Bunyan entered judgment in Case No. 19172/05 on
May 13, 2009.
Advanced Environmental Services and Raul Mora moved for summary
judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, defendant/third-party
plaintiff 125-129 Park Avenue Realty, LLC's (125-129 Park)
third-party complaint, and all cross-claims asserted against it.
Vista Media Group and Seaboard Outdoor Advertising Co.
(collectively, Seaboard-Vista) cross-moved for summary judgment
dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and all third-party claims and
crossclaims asserted against them.
Defendant/third-party defendant Metropolitan Sign & Rigging
Corp. cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs'
complaint and all third-party claims and cross-claims asserted
against it.
The instant consolidated action arose out of a May 2, 2005
incident in which the common wall of a four-story building
located at 125-127 Park Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y., collapsed onto
the roof of an adjoining one-story bodega/mini-market located at
129 Park Avenue (the store).
As a result of the wall-collapse, portions of the store's roof
caved in and Chrystal Stoudmire, a customer in the store,
sustained fatal injuries. Plaintiffs Shermaine Laster and Delma
Lowry, who were store customers, and Jose Arias, a store
employee, sustained personal injuries. Finally, Verizon
sustained certain property damage caused by the collapse.
On June 8, 1998, Seaboard entered into a five-year agreement
with "Pablo Molina as Landlord" to lease the east side wall of
125 Park Avenue. In 1999, Vista acquired Seaboard. In or about
2000, defendants 125-129 Park and Silvestre Castillo purchased
the building as well as the adjoining store.
After the expiration of the five-year lease agreement in June
2003, Seaboard-Vista's billboard remained on the wall.
Furthermore, Seaboard-Vista paid the annual US$2,000 rent for
the use of the wall in June 2003 and June 2004.
In or about 2004, Mr. Castillo decided to renovate the building.
Mr. Castillo hired defendant Julio Leder-Luis as the architect
on the project. On July 13, 2004, Mr. Castillo hired defendants
Mayancela Construction Co., Inc., Miguel Mayancela d/b/a Michael
Construction (collectively, Mayancela) to serve as the general
contractor on the project.
Before actual renovation work on the building could get
underway, two impediments had to be overcome. In particular, all
asbestos materials had to be removed from the building.
Furthermore, Seaboard-Vista's billboard had to be removed from
the wall of the building.
In or about August 2004, Mayancela contacted Advanced, which was
in the asbestos removal business. Mr. Mora, who was employed by
Advanced as a supervisor, met Mr. Mayancela at the building and
checked it for asbestos.
Several months after the asbestos work was completed, in or
about February 2005, 125-129 Park turned its attention to having
the billboard removed from the exterior wall of the building, so
that it could obtain the demolition work permits it needed from
the DOB.
In a work order dated Feb. 16, 2005, Vista hired Metropolitan to
remove the billboard from the building. Metropolitan carried out
this work on March 25, 2005, nearly six weeks prior to the
accident.
Following the May 2, 2005 collapse of the wall, the New York
City Department of Investigation conducted an investigation in
an effort to determine the cause of the wall collapse. On Dec.
14, 2005, The Department of Investigation issued a closing
memorandum which concluded that "although an exact cause of the
wall collapse cannot be made, it appears that the collapse is
due more to exposure of the elements than from blatant
negligence of maintaining the building."
After the accident, the individual defendants, as well as
Chrystal Stoudmire's estate, brought separate actions against
the defendants in this court while Verizon commenced its action
seeking property damages against defendants in Kings County
Civil Court.
In addition, 125-129 Park commenced a third-party action against
Seaboard-Vista, Mayancela, Metropolitan, Mora, and Advanced
seeking common-law and contractual indemnification as well as
damages for breach of contract to procure liability insurance.
Ultimately, these actions, along with 125-129 Park's third-party
action, were consolidated before this court. On or about Dec. 3,
2007, a note of issue was filed in the consolidated action.
Motions were made to vacate the note of issue based upon
outstanding discovery. In a decision and order dated April 8,
2008, Hon. David Schmidt resolved these motions and directed the
various parties to comply with outstanding discovery demands.
Justice Schmidt further extended the deadline for filing summary
judgment motions until May 30, 2008. Finally, Justice Schmidt
denied the motion to vacate the note of issue and the case
remained on the trial calendar. On or about March 27, 2008,
Advanced and Mr. Mora made their instant motion for summary
judgment.
On or about May 30, 2008, Seaboard-Vista made their instant
crossmotion for summary judgment. On or about Aug. 22, 2008,
Metropolitan made its instant cross-motion for summary judgment.
Advanced and Mr. Mora's motion for summary judgment dismissing
plaintiffs' claims and all third-party claims and cross-claims
asserted against them was granted. Seaboard-Vista's cross-motion
for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims and all
third-party claims and cross-claims asserted against it was
granted. Metropolitan's cross-motion for summary judgment
dismissing plaintiffs' claims and all third-party claims and
cross-claims against it was denied as untimely.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DuPont Motion in Whisnant Case Filed July 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, on July 8, 2009, filed a
motion to Jefferson County District Judge Donald Floyd to set
aside a ruling, in an asbestos case wherein Willis Whisnant Jr.
is the plaintiff, The Southeast Texas Record reports.
The Texas Supreme Court had ordered Judge Floyd to disclose his
reasoning behind granting the estate of Mr. Whisnant a new trial
against DuPont. Now DuPont is asking Judge Floyd to set aside
his ruling.
In a 2008 wrongful death trial, jurors found that DuPont did not
maliciously and knowingly inflict the late Mr. Whisnant with an
asbestos illness. Mr. Whisnant, a former subcontractor for
DuPont, died from mesothelioma in his late 70s. A final judgment
was signed by Judge Floyd on April 17, 2008.
Shortly after the verdict, Mr. Whisnant's attorney Glen Morgan's
filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the jury's verdict was
not supported by the evidence. Judge Floyd granted the motion in
a May 28, 2008, order.
In a 4-3 decision issued on July 3, 2009, Texas Supreme Court
justices granted conditional mandamus relief to DuPont,
directing Judge Floyd to set out his reasons for disregarding
the jury's verdict.
In the meantime, DuPont will ask Judge Floyd to set aside his
order granting the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial and to
also reinstate the final judgment at a hearing on July 15, 2009.
Alternatively, DuPont is also asking Judge Floyd to reset the
trial date, from September 2009 to "no earlier than January
2010."
Mehaffy Weber attorney Sandra Clark, Esq., partly represents
DuPont.
Glen Morgan, Esq., of the Reaud, Morgan Quinn law firm
represents the Whisnant family.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pederson Funeral Cited for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
David and Mary Pederson, the owners of Pederson Funeral Home
Inc., in Rockford, Mich., were penalized for asbestos-related
safety violations, The Grand Rapids Press reports.
Both Pederson and the City of Rockford plan to appeal Michigan
Occupational Safety & Health Administration fines stemming from
the April 2009 demolition of a Main Street house. A penalty for
the contractor, Benham Concrete LLC, also is forthcoming, said
Bill DeLiefde, MIOSHA health manager.
In 2008, the Pedersons bought the older residence at 138 N. Main
St., adjacent to the funeral home. The building was razed in
April 2009 to make way for a possible business expansion.
After getting a complaint, MIOSHA determined that the structure
had asbestos in some siding and pipe wrap, and that it was torn
down without proper precautions. The funeral home has been fined
US$1,500. A heftier penalty is on the way for the contractor,
Mr. DeLiefde said.
MIOSHA also is punishing Rockford, which had its firefighters
train in the structure before the demolition. Pederson deeded
the property to the city for that purpose.
City Manager Michael Young said MIOSHA fined the city US$250.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyers Seek to Stop Dismissal of MDL Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos lawyers are seeking to stop a flood of motions to
dismiss their lawsuits in Multi-District Litigation (MDL) court,
The Southeast Texas Record reports.
The lawyers claim that a "dysfunctional database" has churned
out false allegations against their clients. The allegations
have made lawyers find their clients and take sworn statements,
according to Jeffrey Varas of Hazelhurst, Miss.
On July 6, 2009, Mr. Varas wrote to U.S. District Judge Eduardo
Robreno of Philadelphia, "Plaintiffs have been forced to file
unnecessarily thousands of affidavits to rebut and refute the
baseless and false allegations of certain defendants."
Mr. Varas asked Judge Robreno to strike a mass of motions to
dismiss and prayed for an award of attorney's fees, court costs,
expenses and travel reimbursement.
Judge Robreno presides over asbestos suits from around the
nation by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi
District Litigation. In 2008, he ordered each plaintiff suing
more than one defendant to sever the suit and state a specific
claim against each defendant. The order turned tens of thousands
of suits into more than three million.
Defendants moved for a blanket order dismissing every plaintiff
who did not sever a suit, but Judge Robreno asked for separate
motions.
Asbestos lawyers abandoned or settled claims, and Judge Robreno
reported earlier in 2009 that about 500,000 claims had been
resolved in four months.
General Electric lawyer Marcy Croft, Esq., of Jackson, Miss.,
offered a compromise to accelerate the process. On June 30,
2009, she submitted more than 10,000 names and asked Judge
Robreno to dismiss them with a stroke of a pen, relieving her of
the task of filing separate motions.
Judge Robreno has not yet responded to Ms. Croft's request.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cornford Settles Breaches w/ Wisconsin DOJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Cornford, a man who had illegally disposed of and burned
mobile homes, settled with the Wisconsin Department of Justice,
the Associated Press reports.
The DOJ says it settled charges against Mr. Randall Cornford and
his business River Junction Mobile Home Services over violations
in Crawford and Grant counties.
For all violations, Mr. Cornford and his business were ordered
to pay US$55,500 in fines and others costs.
Mr. Cornford admitted in the settlement that he failed to notify
authorities about his burning of old mobile homes, did not check
for asbestos, and operated a solid waste facility without a
license.
In Grant County, Mr. Cornford and his business illegally filled
a wetland with solid waste to use as a mobile home storage area
without any permits.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jammed Asbestos Docket Prioritized Over PPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County, Ill., Circuit Judge Daniel Stack says that a
jammed asbestos docket had to take precedence over a fairness
hearing in a disputed class action suit against a Preferred
Provider Organization (PPO) network, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.
Judge Stack reset the fairness hearing in the class action case
of Shipley and Coy et al. v. First Health Insurance Company et.
al., after it became clear his July 15, 2009 docket was
overloaded.
The hearing had originally been held May 26, 2009 and was
continued to July 15, 2009 due to unfinished arguments. The May
26, 2009 hearing had lasted just over three hours and Judge
Stack called a halt to the arguments due to fatigue.
The case has pitted former law firm members Richard Burke, Esq.,
and Robert Schmieder III, Esq., against one another with First
Health attorney Eric Brandfonbrener, Esq., in between.
When first told July 15, 2009 that Judge Stack was going to
reset the hearing, Mr. Brandfonbrener asked if there was any way
it could take place at the end of the court day.
Judge Stack and attorneys withdrew to the judge's chambers to
settle on a time for the next hearing. The case is Madison case
No. 04-L-1055.
*********
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, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2009. 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 * * *