/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090807.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 155 Headlines AMERICAN INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholders' Suits Over Merger Deal BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Mass. Suit Over Payment Option Mortgages BAXTER INT'L: Defending Lawsuits Over Anti-Hemophilic Factor BAXTER INT'L: Discovery in Suit Over Heparin Recall Ongoing BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Continues in ERISA Violations Suit BAXTER INT'L: Faces Customer Suit Over Plasma-Derived Therapies BAXTER INT'L: Final Approval of AWP Suit Deal Expected in 2009 CAR CREDIT: Judge Orders Release of Information in "Perry" Case CERADYNE INC: Expects August 2009 Trial on Motion for Approval FIRST STUDENT: Faces Suit in Arkansas Over Unpaid Overtime Pay FRESH DEL MONTE: Aug. 24 Conference Set for Consumer Fraud Suit FRESH DEL MONTE: Buyer's Suit Over Pineapples Pending in Florida FRESH DEL MONTE: Summary Judgment Granted in Hawaii Suit in June FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Still Defends Pineapple Suit in New York KILLINGTON LTD: Vt. Judge Wants to See Documents in "Post" Case MERCK & CO: Settles Lawsuits Over Zetia, Vytorin for $41.5M MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Del. Shareholder Suit Settlement Pending MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Pevgonen Plaintiffs Agree to Bid Dismissal NEW HAMPSHIRE: Workers to Sue Over Health Care Co-Payments RPM INTERNATIONAL: 1,705 Claims in "Posey" Lawsuit v. Unit Paid SPECTRANETICS CORP: Investors File Consolidated Fraud Lawsuit U.S. GOVERNMENT: Judge Allows Suit Over MGRO Flooding to Proceed U.S. GOVERNMENT: Pa. Judge Hears Oral Arguments in "Alli" Case U.S. STEEL: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Products in Illinois VARIAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Agilent Agreement WELLS FARGO: Faces Mass. Lawsuit Over Payment Option Mortgages New Securities Fraud Cases ACCURAY INC: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Kendall Law Group Announces Stock Suit Filing CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Howard G. Smith Files Mich. Stock Lawsuit CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Suit Filing GENZYME CORP: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing HURON CONSULTING: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit HURON CONSULTING: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing HURON CONSULTING: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit HURON CONSULTING: Rosen Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing HURON CONSULTING: Sarraf Gentile Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing HURON CONSULTING: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Suit Filing Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $793M Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Mine Safety ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing Against Olin ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10,173 Cases Ongoing v. RPM Units at May 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 415 Cases Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Lincoln Drop to 17,582 at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Flowserve ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Tidewater Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Has Cases in Miss. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1.4T Injury Claims Remain v. Chicago Bridge ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Still Party to Insurance Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Records 10.7 Survival Ratio ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos in 20-30 Kabel Deutschland Sites ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Facing 555 Cases at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in Dean Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Has 24T Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Inc. Still Party to CNA Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Has 10,300 Lawsuits at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Still Party to Aaron Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Still Ongoing v. Inactive Quaker Unit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8T Claims Still Pending v. Cytec at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Facing 4,700 Claims at June 26 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Still Party to Insurance Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Has $2.79B Net Reserve at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 96.6T Claims Ongoing v. Goodyear at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Inc. Facing 25 Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Lorillard Filter Actions Set for Trial ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Still Involved in Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Facing 10,700 Cases at June 26 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Morton Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liabilities at $19.64Mil in June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong $178.7M Tax Refund OK'd July 2009 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Spends $4.027M for Claims at July 3 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Cites $14.3M Expenses at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gladstone Accrues No Liabilities at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Against Pride Int'l. Ongoing in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Has 25,000 Cases in 7 States ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Award Ruling in Case v. Scapa ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Pensioner Denied GBP155T Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Potsdam Civic Center Asbestos Probe Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Cites $2.7Mil Recoveries at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kingsteignton Man's Death Linked to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waterlooville Man's Death Linked to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEM Handling Breach Case Ongoing v. Hicks ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Upholds Ruling in Cross Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rexnord Has $90M Claims Reserve at June 27 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler June 30 Liability at $336.5M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Accrued Liability at $24.39M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abshire Lawsuit Filed v. DuPont on July 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Drennan Action v. 24 Firms Filed on July 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armistead Files Injury Case v. BAE Systems ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyers Move to Oppose Subpoena on Segarra ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chairamonte Convicted for Safety Violations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glass Decorator's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS ALERT: Lebanon Hardboard Fined $63T for Safety Breaches ********* AMERICAN INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc., is seeking dismissal of the consolidated securities fraud class-action litigation filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Law360 reports. AIG, along with several other defendants, including PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, recently filed a motion to dismiss lead plaintiff State of Michigan Retirement Systems' first consolidated complaint, claiming that it along with other plaintiffs are trying to spin a tale of fraud while ignoring the greatest downturn since the Great Depression, according to Law360. AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholders' Suits Over Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Axsys Technologies, Inc., says it is currently engaged in discovery and has not yet responded to any of the shareholders' class action complaints pending in the Superior Court of Connecticut and the Delaware Chancery Court. On June 4, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc., and Vision Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics' parent. Following the June 4, 2009, announcement of the plan of merger, three shareholder class actions were filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut and the Delaware Chancery Court seeking to enjoin the merger or, in the alternative, post-merger monetary relief in unspecified amounts. The actions generally allege that Axsys' board of directors violated its fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by entering into the proposed merger on unfair terms, and by failing to accurately disclose all material information in the proxy statement distributed to shareholders in advance of their vote on the merger. No date had been set for a trial of or a hearing on a preliminary injunction motion, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2009. Axsys Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.axsys.com/-- is a designer and manufacturer of precision optical solutions for defense, aerospace, homeland security and commercial applications. The company operates in two business segments: the Surveillance Systems Group and the Imaging Systems Group. The Surveillance Systems Group designs, manufactures and sells highly precise camera systems for deployment on ground, marine and aerial vehicles. The products are used in surveillance, reconnaissance, tracking and targeting applications. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Mass. Suit Over Payment Option Mortgages --------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America Home Loans, Inc., is facing a purported class- action lawsuit claiming they knew -- or should have known -- their mortgage loans that can grow bigger over time were unaffordable to borrowers, Jenifer B. McKim at The Boston Globe reports. The lawsuit was filed on June 26, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Jerome Hart. It is captioned Hart v. Bank of America Home Loans, Inc., Case No. 1:2009-cv-11096. Gary Klein, Esq., of the law firm Roddy, Klein and Ryan, sought class-action status for the case, saying that hundreds of Massachusetts borrowers ultimately will be unable to afford their mortgages. A decision on class-action status is pending, reports Ms. McKim. The suit focuses on so-called "payment option" mortgages, which allow borrowers to make minimum monthly payments on home loans. From the day the paperwork is signed, any unpaid interest is added to the balance. Eventually, the day of reckoning comes -- usually after five years -- and a borrower is required to make payments that cover the full mortgage interest and swelling principal, according to The Boston Globe. Mr. Hart is represented by: Gary Klein, Esq. Roddy, Klein & Ryan 727 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-357-5500 ext. 15 Fax: 617-357-5030 E-mail: klein@roddykleinryan.com Web site: http://www.roddykleinryan.com/ BAXTER INT'L: Defending Lawsuits Over Anti-Hemophilic Factor ------------------------------------------------------------ Baxter International Inc. remains a defendant in a number of lawsuits and subject to additional claims brought by individuals who have hemophilia and their families. The lawsuits all seek damages for injuries allegedly caused by anti-hemophilic factor concentrates VIII or IX derived from human blood plasma (factor concentrates) processed by the company and other acquired entities from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s. The typical case or claim alleges that the individual was infected with the HIV or HCV virus by factor concentrates that contained one or both viruses. None of these cases involves factor concentrates currently processed by the company, according to its July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute medical conditions. As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter applies a combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance patient care worldwide. BAXTER INT'L: Discovery in Suit Over Heparin Recall Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in lawsuits, including purported class actions, against Baxter International Inc. over the recall of heparin products is ongoing. In connection with the recall of heparin products in the United States, approximately 165 lawsuits, some of which are purported class actions, have been filed alleging that plaintiffs suffered various reactions to a heparin contaminant, in some cases resulting in fatalities. In June 2008, a number of these federal cases were consolidated before the Honorable James G. Carr in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Master Docket No. 08-60000; MDL No. 1953) for pretrial case management under the Multi District Litigation rules. In September 2008, a number of state court cases were consolidated in Cook County, Illinois for pretrial case management. Discovery is ongoing and a trial date is scheduled for October 2010, according to the company's July 28, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute medical conditions. As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter applies a combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance patient care worldwide. BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Continues in ERISA Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Expert discovery is ongoing in a purported class action against Baxter International Inc. pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In October 2004, the class action was filed against Baxter and its current Chief Executive Officer and then current Chief Financial Officer and their predecessors for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. The Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k) plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants by offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each of the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004. In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan participants who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through the plans between January 2001 and the present. In April 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Baxter's interlocutory appeal and upheld the trial court's denial of Baxter's motion to dismiss. Baxter has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Fact discovery has been completed in this matter and expert discovery is proceeding, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute medical conditions. As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter applies a combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance patient care worldwide. BAXTER INT'L: Faces Customer Suit Over Plasma-Derived Therapies --------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. faces a hospital customer's suit stating a class action claim in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 15, 2009, a hospital customer filed suit alleging that Baxter and a competitor conspired to restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since late 2004. The complaint attempts to state a claim for class action relief and demands treble damages, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute medical conditions. As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter applies a combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance patient care worldwide. BAXTER INT'L: Final Approval of AWP Suit Deal Expected in 2009 -------------------------------------------------------------- Final approval of the class settlement in a consolidated action against Baxter International Inc. over alleged inflation of average wholesale prices is expected later in 2009. The company is a defendant, along with others, in over 50 lawsuits brought in various state and U.S. federal courts, which allege that Baxter and other defendants reported artificially inflated average wholesale prices for Medicare and Medicaid eligible drugs. These cases have been brought by private parties on behalf of various purported classes of purchasers of Medicare and Medicaid eligible drugs, as well as by state attorneys general. A number of these cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Master Docket No. 01- CV-12257; MDL No. 1456) for pretrial case management under Multi District Litigation rules. In April 2008, the court preliminarily approved a class settlement resolving Medicare Part B claims and independent health plan claims against Baxter and others, which had previously been reserved for by the company. Remaining lawsuits against Baxter include a number of cases brought by state attorneys general and New York entities, which seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement, forfeiture and restitution. Various state and federal agencies are conducting civil investigations into the marketing and pricing practices of Baxter and others with respect to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. These investigations may result in additional cases being filed by various state attorneys general, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute medical conditions. As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter applies a combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance patient care worldwide. CAR CREDIT: Judge Orders Release of Information in "Perry" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ortrie Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ordered several local car dealers to release the names and addresses of every customer who bought vehicles from them since Dec. 11, 2003, Dan Margolies at The Kansas City Star reports. The order was issued in a class-action lawsuit challenging the dealers' right to charge customers for document preparation fees. The suit was filed on Apr. 3, 2009, by Louis Perry against Car Credity City, LLC, and Lovergreen Ford Mercury. It is captioned Perry v. Car Credit City, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:2009-cv-06034, and alleges that the document preparation process constitutes the unlawful practice of law. Originally filed in December 2008 in Sullivan County Circuit Court, the lawsuit was transferred to federal court in Kansas City, Mr. Margolies reports. The case is one of many filed in Missouri after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled last year that a bank that had charged document preparation fees for completing mortgage documents had engaged in the unlawful practice of law, according to The Kansas City Star. Just a month after the dealer case was filed in Sullivan County, the court certified the suit as a class-action case and defined the defendant class as all Missouri dealerships that had sold motor vehicles and charged fees for document processing. After one of the car dealers, Car Credit City, removed the case to federal court, Judge Smith directed the dealers to produce a listing of every purchaser and their addresses since Dec. 11, 2003 -- or five years before the lawsuit was filed. The judge did so because he needed to determine whether at least a third of the dealers' sales were made outside of Missouri, a threshold requirement of the federal Class Action Fairness Act, the basis for federal jurisdiction in the case, reports Mr. Margolies. The dealers objected, protesting that the information was sensitive and proprietary, and asked Judge Smith to enter a protective order limiting the use of the information by the plaintiffs' lawyers. In a one-paragraph order entered last week, Judge Smith denied the dealers' motion without explanation, The Kansas City Star reported. Mr. Perry is represented by: Danieal H. Miller, Esq. Danieal H. Miller, P.C. 720 West Sexton Road Columbia, MO 65203 Phone: (573)443-1645 Fax: (573) 874-3159 E-mail: dhm@daniealhmiller.com - and - Seth D. Shumaker, Esq. Law Office of Seth Shumaker 716 South Baltimore Kirksville, MO 63501 Phone: (660) 665-7700 Fax: (660) 665-7878 E-mail: shumaker@cableone.net Car Credit is represented by: Mark G. Arnold, Esq. Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105-3441 Phone: (314) 480-1802 Fax: (314) 480-1505 E-mail: mark.arnold@huschblackwell.com CERADYNE INC: Expects August 2009 Trial on Motion for Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for approval of the settlement of a purported class- action lawsuit against Ceradyne, Inc., which alleged that the representative plaintiff, a former Ceradyne employee, and the putative class members, were not paid overtime at an appropriate overtime rate, is expected to be heard in August 2009. The suit, styled Daniel Vargas, Jr. v. Ceradyne, Inc., Orange County Superior Court, Civil Action No. 07CC01232, was filed in the California Superior Court for Orange County, on March 23, 2007. The suit alleges that the purportedly affected employees should have had their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime, adjusted to reflect the payment of a bonus to them for the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. The complaint further alleges that a waiting time penalty should be assessed for the failure to timely pay the correct overtime payment. Ceradyne has filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. A motion for class certification was filed on or about Aug. 11, 2008. Ceradyne has filed an opposition claiming that there are no common questions of fact that can be generalized across the class. It has also opposed the motion on the basis that the Plaintiff has not established his suitability as a class representative, particularly because he is a former employee whose interests conflict with the current employees. The motion for class certification was heard on Nov. 13, 2008, and class certification was granted. On Jan. 6, 2009, the court entered an order certifying the class. Ceradyne contends that the lawsuit is without merit on the basis that the bonuses that have been paid are discretionary and not of the type that are subject to inclusion in the regular hourly rate for purposes of calculating overtime. After a request for review by the Court of Appeal of the decision to grant class certification, a day-long mediation before a third-party neutral mediator, and an evaluation of the cost of litigation and the financial exposure in the case, Ceradyne agreed to provide a settlement fund of $1.25 million to resolve all issues in the litigation. The settlement specifically states that neither party is admitting to liability or lack thereof. The plaintiff's counsel is preparing a motion for approval of the settlement by the court and such motion is expected to be heard in August 2009. The settlement provides for reversion of any unclaimed amounts from the settlement fund back to Ceradyne, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Ceradyne, Inc. -- http://www.ceradyne.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets advanced technical ceramic products, ceramic powders and components for defense, industrial, automotive/diesel and commercial applications. It operates through six segments: Advanced Ceramic Operations, ESK Ceramics, Semicon Associates, Thermo Materials, Ceradyne Canada and Ceradyne Boron Products. The company's products include lightweight ceramic armor for soldiers and other military applications; ceramic industrial components for erosion and corrosion resistant applications; ceramic powders, including boron carbide, boron nitride, titanium diboride, calcium hexaboride, and zirconium diboride, which are used in manufacture of armor and a range of industrial products; BORONEIGE boron nitride powder for cosmetic products, and evaporation boats for metallization of materials for food packaging and other products. Its products are sold into four principal markets: defense, industrial, automotive/diesel and commercial. FIRST STUDENT: Faces Suit in Arkansas Over Unpaid Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc. at its terminal in Little Rock, Arkansas. The lawsuit, entitled Douglas, et al. v. First Student, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-00652, was filed on Friday, July 31, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, on behalf of all persons employed by First Student, Inc., as drivers or dispatchers at its terminal in Little Rock, Arkansas, at any time from August 1, 2006, to the present. This is the second class action lawsuit filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc., which describes itself on its website as "North America's leading school bus transportation services company and responsible for safely transporting 4 million students to and from school every day." Another class action lawsuit, entitled Hoffman v. First Student, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-1882, is currently pending against First Student, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Hoffman case, which also alleges claims of unpaid wages and unpaid overtime on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers in Maryland, has already been approved by the court as a class action and will go to trial soon. The lawsuit that was just filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc. in Arkansas alleges that First Student, Inc. violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Arkansas state laws by failing to pay its bus drivers and dispatchers for all hours and overtime worked. For example, the Complaint alleges that drivers are paid for two and a half hours for their morning route and two and a half hours for their afternoon route regardless of how many hours it actually takes them to complete their routes and complete other work associated with their routes such as pre-trip and post-trip inspections. Similarly, the bus drivers allege that they are not paid for all of their work time for field trips and athletic events. First Student, Inc.'s website states that it maintains a fleet of more than 60,000 school buses and 68,000 drivers nationwide. "First Student, Inc. appears to be engaging in violations of the federal and state overtime laws by requiring its bus drivers and dispatchers to spend numerous hours working off-the- clock and without compensation. The plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to ask that First Student, Inc. be held accountable for failing to pay its employees wages they have legitimately earned," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. Another attorney for the plaintiffs in both cases, C. Christopher Brown of Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, states, "The conduct we have seen in these cases and across First Student, Inc.'s terminals, whether in Baltimore, Maryland or Little Rock, Arkansas, is similar, and it is important that it be addressed by the courts and that a remedy is fashioned that will ensure that First Student, Inc. changes its policies to ensure that workers are paid for all of their time spent working." For more details, contact: Shanon Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C. Phone: (215) 875-3053 or (215) 875-4656 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com FRESH DEL MONTE: Aug. 24 Conference Set for Consumer Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A case management conference in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit against Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., over its pineapple products is scheduled for Aug. 24, 2009. Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged individual consumers separately filed putative class-action complaints against the company and its subsidiaries in the state court of California on behalf of residents of California who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003. The complaints allege violations of the Cartwright Act, common law monopolization, unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professional Code, unjust enrichment and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. On April 19, 2004, the company removed these actions to federal court. The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to the state court of California, which remand request was granted separately by the court in July 2004. These actions were allowed to proceed in the state court of California. In one of the three actions, the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. This dismissal request was granted in part and denied in part. On Nov. 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professional Code. The company filed a motion to dismiss this one remaining claim, which was denied by the court on Jan. 6, 2006. The appellate court denied the request for an interlocutory appeal on March 2, 2006. On Sept. 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class-action suit, which the company and its subsidiaries intend to oppose. The company and its subsidiaries filed an opposition on Feb. 13, 2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009. At the hearing held on May 20, 2009, the court issued a tentative opinion granting certification based on a California Supreme Court decision issued on May 19, 2009, but requested further briefing. The company and plaintiffs have served supplemental briefs in response, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2009. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/ -- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks. The company's global business, conducted through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source products from North America, Africa and Europe. The company distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand. FRESH DEL MONTE: Buyer's Suit Over Pineapples Pending in Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action suit filed by a buyer of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.'s pineapple products remains pending in Florida, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2009. On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class-action complaint against the company's subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003. The complaint alleges fraudulent concealment (and tolling of the statute of limitations), violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. On May 11, 2004, the subsidiaries removed this action to federal court. The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to state court and the company's subsidiaries opposed that motion. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand. The case now proceeds in the state court of Florida. On Oct. 27, 2004, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, which motion was granted on Jan. 23, 2006, with leave for plaintiffs to amend. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 13, 2006. On March 10, 2006, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in part. On Sept. 27, 2006, the state court granted this motion and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating to pineapples purchased before April 19, 2000. The subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining claims of the amended complaint on Oct. 12, 2006. On Aug. 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class- action lawsuit. The company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on Jan. 22, 2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/ -- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks. The company's global business, conducted through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source products from North America, Africa and Europe. The company distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand. FRESH DEL MONTE: Summary Judgment Granted in Hawaii Suit in June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Summary judgment was granted in June 2009 in favor of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.'s remaining U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class-action suit in Hawaii, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2009. In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of the company's U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in Hawaii. The action was dismissed by a federal district court on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the courts of the plaintiffs' home countries and the plaintiffs appealed this decision. On April 22, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal, thereby remanding the action to the Hawaiian state court. On April 27, 2007, the company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the action, which do not have ties to Hawaii, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed these subsidiaries from the action on June 28, 2007. On Feb. 19, 2008, plaintiffs moved to certify a worldwide class of farm workers allegedly injured from exposure to DBCP, which motion was denied on July 15, 2008. At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the company's remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time barred. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/ -- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks. The company's global business, conducted through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source products from North America, Africa and Europe. The company distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand. FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Still Defends Pineapple Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Two subsidiaries of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit pending in New York over Del Monte Gold pineapples, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2009. The consolidated complaint was filed against the company's units on Aug. 2, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is brought as a putative class-action lawsuit on behalf of all direct and indirect purchasers of Del Monte Gold pineapples from March 1, 1996, through the present and merges four actions brought by fruit wholesalers and two actions brought by individual consumers. The complaint alleges claims for: -- monopolization and attempted monopolization; -- restraint of trade; -- unfair and deceptive trade practices; and -- unjust enrichment. On May 27, 2005, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the indirect and direct purchasers' claims for unjust enrichment. On June 29, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion for class certification. On Feb. 20, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the indirect purchasers and only granted class certification of the direct purchasers' claims for monopolization and attempted monopolization which were uncontested by the company's subsidiaries. Also, on Feb. 20, 2008, the Court granted the motion of the company's subsidiaries to dismiss the direct purchasers' claims for unjust enrichment and denied as moot the motion to dismiss the indirect purchasers' state law claims on the basis of the Court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the indirect purchasers. On Aug. 13, 2008, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims. The plaintiffs opposed that summary judgment motion on Oct. 6, 2008, and the Subsidiaries filed replies on Dec. 8, 2008. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/ -- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks. The company's global business, conducted through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing, transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas, pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and South America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source products from North America, Africa and Europe. The company distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand. KILLINGTON LTD: Vt. Judge Wants to See Documents in "Post" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge John Conroy of the U.S District Court for the District of Vermont ordered SP Land Co. to produce documents in connection with a class-action lawsuit concerning the cancellation of lifetime investor ski passes at Killington Resort, Bruce Edwards at The Rutland Herald reports. SP Land Co. and a related entity, SP II Resort, were ordered to produce certain e-mail communications dated prior to the acquisition of the ski resort from American Skiing Co. in May 2007. The documents relate to e-mail correspondence between SP Land Co., SP II Resort and, other entities, including American Skiing Co., reports Mr. Edwards. The suit was filed on Nov. 20, 2007, by Martin Post, Jill Post, Judith A. Dark, and William Langlais. It is captioned Post, et al. v. Killington, Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00252-WKS-JMC, and named as defendants SP Land Co., SP II Resort and Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners and former owners Killington Ltd., American Skiing Co., and S-K-I Ltd. The Herald reported that the lawsuit was filed several months after the resort was purchased by Powdr Corp. and SP Land Co., which operate the ski area under Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners. Powdr Corp. is not named in the lawsuit. It was later certified by the court as a class-action case. According to court documents, the class includes 1,243 investor pass holders. The passes were issued between 1958 and 1965 as an incentive to invest in the new ski area. Over the years, some of the passes have been sold and then re-sold. Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners and SP Land Co. informed the investor pass holders that what they considered lifetime passes would no longer be honored after the 2008-09 ski season. In canceling the passes, Killington's new owners explained that they purchased the ski area's assets and not the company itself, which they said ceased to exist after the 2007 purchase, according to the newspaper. The plaintiffs are represented by: Erin Miller Heins, Esq. Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP 210 College Street P.O. Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 Phone: (802) 864-0217 E-mail: eheins@langrock.com The defendants are represented by: Carol E. Farquhar, Esq. Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, LLP 12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75251 Phone: (214) 572-1700 E-mail: carolf@lfdlaw.com Alexandra H. Bolanis, Esq. Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC 150 South Champlain Street P.O. Box 1489 Burlington, VT 05402-1489 Phone: (802) 864-0880 E-mail: abolanis@ppeclaw.com - and - Angela R. Clark, Esq. Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C. 209 Battery Street P.O. Box 988 Burlington, VT 05402-0988 Phone: (802) 864-5751 E-mail: aclark@dinse.com MERCK & CO: Settles Lawsuits Over Zetia, Vytorin for $41.5M ----------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., and Schering-Plough Corp. will pay $41.5 million to settle class-action lawsuits over their shared cholesterol drugs Vytorin and Zetia, Lewis Krauskopf at Reuters reports. The suits involved allegations arising from the Enhance clinical trial, whose results released in January 2008 raised questions about the worth of Zetia and Vytorin. Merck and Schering-Plough, which have agreed to merge, sell the blockbuster medicines through a joint venture. Vytorin combines Zetia and an older statin drug, Zocor, into one pill, reports Mr. Krauskopf. The settlement will resolve all the class-action lawsuits that seek economic damages related to the purchase of the two drugs, according to the companies, who have disclosed about 145 such lawsuits pending in federal court in New Jersey. The deal involves two settlements: one with consumers and other entities that purchased the drugs, and one with health plans. The settlement with consumers is subject to court approval, while the other is not, according to Reuters. Mr. Krauskopf reported that a study found Vytorin was no more effective in reducing plaque in the carotid arteries than an inexpensive generic form of Zocor (simvastatin). Sales of Vytorin and Zetia, which had become blockbuster products, plunged when results of the trial became known. MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Del. Shareholder Suit Settlement Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement of a consolidated putative shareholder class action styled In re Monogram Biosciences, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 4703-CC, remains subject to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware's approval. On June 30, 2009, a single plaintiff, Tim Bleymeyer, initiated a putative shareholder class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Monogram, LabCorp, Mastiff, and individual members of the company's board of directors. That action, captioned Tim Bleymeyer v. Monogram Biosciences, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4703-CC, alleges that (i) individual members of the company's board of directors violated their fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders, including their duties to (a) fully inform themselves of the company's market value before taking action, (b) act in the interests of the equity owners, (c) maximize shareholder value, (d) obtain the best financial and other terms when Monogram's existence will be materially altered by the transaction, (e) act in accordance with fundamental duties of loyalty, care and good faith and (f) act independently in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders, and (ii) LabCorp and Monogram aided and abetted the other defendants in the breaches of their fiduciary duties. Bleymeyer seeks to enjoin the acquisition of Monogram by Mastiff and LabCorp and requests monetary damages in an unspecified amount. On July 6, 2009, Bleymeyer amended his complaint to include allegations stemming from alleged misstatements and omissions in Monogram's Schedule 14D-9. On July 7, 2009, a second complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, styled Kurt Kvist v. Monogram Biosciences, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4717-CC, asserting allegations and claims identical to those set forth in the Bleymeyer Action. On July 9, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order consolidating the Bleymeyer and Kvist Actions into the Delaware Action. On July 9, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court heard a motion for expedited proceedings submitted by the plaintiffs in the Bleymeyer and Kvist Actions. On July 13, 2009, the Delaware Plaintiffs submitted a renewed motion for expedited proceedings raising only certain disclosure issues. On July 23, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for July 28, 2009, limited to the disclosure issues identified in the renewed motion for expedited proceedings and related letter submissions. On July 23 and 24, 2009, Monogram produced a limited set of documents to Delaware Plaintiffs. On July 27, 2009, Defendants and Delaware Plaintiffs entered into a memorandum of understanding contemplating the settlement of all claims in the Delaware Action. Under the MOU, subject to court approval and further definitive documentation, Delaware Plaintiffs and the putative class agreed to settle and release, against Defendants and their affiliates and agents, any and all claims in the Delaware Action and any potential claim related to the Offer and the merger, the fiduciary obligations of the Defendants, the negotiations in connection with the Offer, the merger and the disclosure obligations of the Defendants in connection with the Offer and the merger, the alleged aiding and abetting of any breach of fiduciary duty, any alleged conflict of interest of any remuneration or employment benefits to any individual made in connection with the Offer and the merger and all other allegations in the Delaware Action. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the company agreed to provide additional supplemental disclosures to its Schedule 14D-9. Defendants have also agreed not to oppose any fee application by Plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed $215,000. The settlement is contingent upon, among other things, approval of the fee award by the Chancery Court and the merger becoming effective under Delaware law, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10- Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Monogram Biosciences, Inc. -- http://www.monogrambio.com/-- is a life sciences company engaged in the development of molecular diagnostic products that guide and target the appropriate treatments. The company is developing molecular diagnostics and laboratory services that are designed to enable physicians to manage infectious diseases and cancers by providing the critical information that helps them prescribe personalized treatments for patients by matching the underlying molecular features of an individual patient's disease to the drug expected to have maximal therapeutic benefit, and enable pharmaceutical companies to develop new and improved anti-viral therapeutics and targeted cancer therapeutics by providing enhanced patient selection and monitoring capabilities throughout the development process. MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Pevgonen Plaintiffs Agree to Bid Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a putative shareholder class action complaint styled Andrei Pevgonen v. William Young, et al., Case No. Civ. 485636, agreed to seek dismissal of the case, according to Monogram Biosciences, Inc.'s July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On June 26, 2009, a single plaintiff, Andrei Pevgonen, initiated a putative shareholder class action in Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco County, against the Defendants. The action, styled Andrei Pevgonen v. William Young, et al., Case No. CGC-09-489866, alleged that (i) individual members of the company's board of directors violated their fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders, including their duties of loyalty, good faith, independence and candor, and allegedly failed to maximize value for the company's stockholders by conducting an unfair sales process and entering into the Merger Agreement, and (ii) LabCorp and Monogram aided and abetted the other defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties. Pevgonen sought to enjoin the acquisition of Monogram by Mastiff and LabCorp and requested monetary damages in an unspecified amount. On July 2, 2009, Pevgonen filed an amended complaint, which added allegations and a breach of fiduciary duty claim stemming from alleged misstatements and omissions in Monogram's Schedule 14D-9, which was filed with the SEC on July 1, 2009. On July 2, 2009, a second putative class action was initiated in Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco County, styled Charulata Patel v. Monogram Biosciences, Inc., et al, Case No. CGC-09-490059. The complaint in the 2nd SF Action alleged similar claims to those made in the 1st SF Action. Both actions were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on July 10 and July 7, 2009, respectively. On July 7, 2009, Andrei Pevgonen filed a complaint in Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, styled Andrei Pevgonen v. William Young, et al., Case No. Civ. 485636, asserting the same allegations and claims that he made in the 1st SF Action. On July 8, 2009, Pevgonen filed an amended complaint, adding named plaintiffs Charulata Patel and Rebecca Jordan. On July 14, 2009, the San Mateo Superior Court stayed the California Action for 90 days because a similar, parallel action was proceeding in Delaware. On July 23, 2009, California Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Case Update, requesting a status conference to discuss whether the Stay should be lifted. Defendants opposed and, on July 24, 2009, the Court denied California Plaintiffs' Request. On July 28, 2009, Defendants and California Plaintiffs entered into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which California Plaintiffs agreed to request the Court to enter an Order to dismiss the California Action with prejudice and to release, against Defendants, and their affiliates and agents, any and all claims in the California Action and any potential claim related to the Offer and the merger, the fiduciary obligations of the Defendants, the negotiations in connection with the Offer and the merger, the disclosure obligations of the Defendants in connection with the Offer and the merger, the alleged aiding and abetting of any breach of fiduciary duty, any alleged conflict of interest of any remuneration or employment benefits to any individual made in connection with the Offer and the merger, and all other allegations in the California Action. Defendants agreed not to oppose any fee application to be submitted by California Plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed $65,000. Monogram Biosciences, Inc. -- http://www.monogrambio.com/-- is a life sciences company engaged in the development of molecular diagnostic products that guide and target the appropriate treatments. The company is developing molecular diagnostics and laboratory services that are designed to enable physicians to manage infectious diseases and cancers by providing the critical information that helps them prescribe personalized treatments for patients by matching the underlying molecular features of an individual patient's disease to the drug expected to have maximal therapeutic benefit, and enable pharmaceutical companies to develop new and improved anti-viral therapeutics and targeted cancer therapeutics by providing enhanced patient selection and monitoring capabilities throughout the development process. NEW HAMPSHIRE: Workers to Sue Over Health Care Co-Payments ---------------------------------------------------------- Retired state employees plan to file a purported class-action lawsuit against the State of New Hampshire, claiming that a provision of the new state budget requiring young retirees to pay $65 a month for their formerly free, state-provided health care is unconstitutional, Lauren R. Dorgan at The Concord Monitor reports. The heart of the complaint centers on the way the state is taking the insurance premium, rather than the premium itself. Starting last week, a charge of $65 per single retiree or $130 per couple was deducted directly from the pension checks of hundreds of retired state employees who are under the age of 65. The retirees claim that the deduction is an "illegal 'encumbrance' and 'diversion'" because the retirees' rights to a full pension payment is "contractually vested," according to a draft version of the lawsuit provided to the Monitor. "The federal and New Hampshire Constitutions clearly forbid legislation that impairs vested rights. It is well-settled law in New Hampshire that State retirees enjoy a contractually vested right to receive their pension checks," the proposed lawsuit reads. According to attorney Glenn Milner, Esq., who is representing the State Employees' Association and several individual employees who seek class-action status, "If the state believes that the state employee retirees should pay for their health insurance, they certainly shouldn't deduct that amount from their pension check." He adds, "What they've done is liened the pension check, which we believe, and our national law firm partners firmly believe, is unconstitutional." The petitioners, who are set to file in Merrimack County Superior Court, plan to ask a judge to render an injunction to stop the pension deductions. Representing the petitioners are: Glenn R. Milner, Esq. Molan Milner and Krupski, PLLC 100 Hall Street Suite 101 Concord, NH 03301 Phone: 603.410.6011 Fax: 603.410.6031 E-mail: glenn@molanmilner.com Web site: http://molanmilner.com - and - Stember Feinstein Doyle and Payne, LLC 429 Forbes Avenue, Allegheny Building, 17th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412.281.8400 Fax: 412.281.1007 E-mail: info@stemberfeinstein.com Web site: http://www.stemberfeinstein.com/ RPM INTERNATIONAL: 1,705 Claims in "Posey" Lawsuit v. Unit Paid --------------------------------------------------------------- Dryvit Systems, a wholly owned subsidiary of RPM International Inc., has paid a total of 1,705 claims in a class action over its residential exterior insulated finish systems product line for a total of approximately $14.1 million. Dryvit is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed on Nov. 14, 2000, in Jefferson County, Tennessee, styled Bobby R. Posey, et al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc. (formerly styled William J. Humphrey, et al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.), Case No. 17,715-IV), which was finally certified by court order on Sept. 15, 2005. The deadline for filing claims in the Posey class action expired on June 5, 2004, and claims have been processed during the pendency of the various appeals. As of June 30, 2009, a cumulative total of 1,705 claims have been paid over the term of the settlement agreement for a total of approximately $14.1 million. Although additional payments have and will continue to be made under the terms of the settlement agreement, which include inspection costs, third party warranties and class counsel attorneys' fees, the company does not expect these payments to be material in future periods, according to the company's July 28, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009. RPM International Inc. -- http://www.rpminc.com/-- through its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets and sells various specialty chemical product lines, including specialty paints, protective coatings, roofing systems, sealants and adhesives, focusing on the maintenance and improvement needs of both the industrial and consumer markets. The company's family of products includes those marketed under brand names, such as Carboline, DAP, Day- Glo, Dryvit, EUCO, Fibergrate, Flecto, illbruck, Rust-Oleum, Stonhard, Tremco, Watco and Zinsser. RPM's business is divided into two segments. SPECTRANETICS CORP: Investors File Consolidated Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Spectranetics Corp. investors filed a consolidated class-action suit that accuses the medical devices company of defrauding its shareholders by illegally and secretly marketing one of its products for procedures not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Law360 reports. Spectranetics Investor Group sued nine of the company's highest officials, including its president, vice president, chief operating officer and board of directors chairman, according to Law360. U.S. GOVERNMENT: Judge Allows Suit Over MGRO Flooding to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that plaintiffs can proceed with a lawsuit charging the federal government with "taking" the value of their land in St. Bernard and the Lower 9th Ward through flooding caused by the building the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Mark Schleifstein at The Times-Picayune reports. On Aug. 3, 2009, Judge Braden refused to dismiss the lawsuit, which federal attorneys contended was filed too long after the six-year statute of limitations in such cases should have run its course. The class-action case, filed a month and a half after Hurricane Katrina flooded both areas in August 2005, contends that continuing environmental damage resulting from construction of the MRGO by the Army Corps of Engineers left the plaintiffs -- including the St. Bernard Parish government and the owners of Rocky & Carlo's Restaurant in Chalmette -- vulnerable to flooding, Mr. Schleifstein reported. The MRGO opened in 1965 and was quickly criticized for destroying wetlands on the eastern edge of St. Bernard. The lawsuit stems from the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which provides "private property (shall not) be taken for public purpose, without just compensation," according to the report. According to Judge Braden, evidence of severe flooding in 2005 and other flooding since then showed the plaintiffs are entitled to ask the court for compensation, reports The Times-Picayune. U.S. GOVERNMENT: Pa. Judge Hears Oral Arguments in "Alli" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John E. Jones, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently hear oral arguments in the case, Alli v. Decker, et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-00698-JEJ-SF, Paula Reed Ward at The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports. Alexander Alli and Elliot Grenade, who are being held on immigration charges, filed the lawsuit, claiming that they -- and more than 1,000 people like them across Pennsylvania -- are being detained indefinitely with no chance to make bond. The suit was filed on their behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union. According to the suit, Mr. Alli, moved to the U.S. from Ghana in 1990, while Mr. Grenade, came to the U.S. from Trinidad and Tobago in 1981 as a lawful permanent resident, the newspaper reported. Court filings obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette indicated that Mr. Alli, who became a lawful permanent resident in 1996 and is married to an American citizen, was convicted in federal court in New York for obtaining 1,900 credit reports with individuals' private financial information resulting in a monetary loss of $70,000. He was sentenced to 24 months in prison and completed his sentence in August 2008. However, while still incarcerated, Immigration and Customs Enforcement took custody of Mr. Alli and moved him to the York County Prison, pending his possible removal from the U.S. In the lawsuit, Mr. Alli contends that he has improperly been held for nearly a year with no hearing to determine if he could be released on bond pending the outcome of his case. Mr. Grenade was convicted of selling cocaine in New York in 1995 and was ordered to a drug treatment program. He failed to complete the treatment and was re-sentenced in 2006 to two to four years in prison. He was released from his term in September 2007, but while he was still incarcerated, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. He claims that he has been held for more than 18 months with no detention hearing. The government though says that neither man is being improperly -- or indefinitely -- detained. Instead, they are being held pending the outcome of their immigration proceedings. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status to represent all similarly situated people in Pennsylvania, stresses that "petitioners do not seek an order granting their release, but merely a hearing where the government bears the burden of demonstrating that their prolonged detention is justified," reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Messrs. Alli and Grenade are represented by: Farrin R. Anello, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St. 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-284-7303 E-mail: fanello@aclu.org - and - Stanley J. Ellenberg, Esq. Law Offices of Stanley J. Ellenberg, PC 1518 Walnut St., Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215.790.1682 E-mail: ebergs@aol.com The defendants are represented by: Theodore W. Atkinson, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice 450 5th Street, NW, Room 6048 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202.532.4135 E-mail: theodore.atkinson@usdoj.gov - and - Stephen Cerutti, Esq. Department of Justice/United States Attorney's Office 228 Walnut Street, Suite 220 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Phone: 717-221-4482 E-mail: Stephen.Cerutti@usdoj.gov U.S. STEEL: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Products in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Steel Corp. continues to face several purported antitrust class-action lawsuits in Illinois over steel products, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. In a series of lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois beginning Sept. 12, 2008, individual direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel, conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic production of raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price of steel products in the United States. The cases are filed as class-action lawsuits and claim treble damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any damage amounts. U.S. Steel Corp. -- http://www.ussteel.com-- is an integrated steel producer with production operations in North America and Central Europe. The company has an annual raw steel production capability of 24.3 million net tons (tons) in the North America and 7.4 million tons in Central Europe. U. S. Steel is also engaged in several other business activities, most of which are related to steel manufacturing. These include the production of coke in both in North America and Central Europe, and the production of iron ore pellets from taconite, transportation services (railroad and barge operations), real estate operations and engineering and consulting services in North America. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the company had three operating segments: Flat-rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE) and Tubular Products (Tubular). VARIAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Agilent Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in California State Court challenging the proposed acquisition of Varian, Inc. (NASDAQ: VARI). The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Varian stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with Agilent Technologies Inc. (NYSE: A). Under the proposed agreement, Varian shareholders will receive $52.00 in cash for each share of Varian they own for a total transaction value of approximately $1.5 billion. The transaction appears unfair given that Varian shares traded close to $70.00 per share in 2008. In addition, the Varian Board agreed to a no-solicitation provision and a $46 million termination fee that will all but ensure that no superior offer will ever be forthcoming. The companies expect to consummate the transaction before the end of 2009, subject to customary closing conditions, including all necessary regulatory and stockholder approvals. For more details, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad Street - 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Web site: http://www.zlk.com/vari1.html WELLS FARGO: Faces Mass. Lawsuit Over Payment Option Mortgages -------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. is facing a purported class- action lawsuit claiming they knew -- or should have known -- their mortgage loans that can grow bigger over time were unaffordable to borrowers, Jenifer B. McKim at The Boston Globe reports. The lawsuit was filed on June 23, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Bernardo Bettinelli and Carol G. Bettinelli. It is captioned, Bettinelli, et al. v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 1:2009-cv-11079. Gary Klein, Esq., of the law firm Roddy, Klein and Ryan, sought class-action status for the case, saying that hundreds of Massachusetts borrowers ultimately will be unable to afford their mortgages. A decision on class-action status is pending, reports Ms. McKim. The suit focuses on so-called "payment option" mortgages, which allow borrowers to make minimum monthly payments on home loans. From the day the paperwork is signed, any unpaid interest is added to the balance. Eventually, the day of reckoning comes -- usually after five years -- and a borrower is required to make payments that cover the full mortgage interest and swelling principal, according to The Boston Globe. The Bettinellis are represented by: Gary Klein, Esq. Roddy, Klein & Ryan 727 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-357-5500 ext. 15 Fax: 617-357-5030 E-mail: klein@roddykleinryan.com Web site: http://www.roddykleinryan.com/ New Securities Fraud Cases ACCURAY INC: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Accuray Incorporated (NASDAQ: ARAY) between February 7, 2007 and August 19, 2008, inclusive. Also included are purchasers of Accuray common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about February 7, 2007. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning Accuray's financial performance, but failed to disclose that: Accuray amended its definition of backlog to include both contingent and non-contingent contracts; that a considerable percentage of contingent and non-contingent orders for the CyberKnife system that did not have a high probability of being booked as revenue were reported as backlog; Accuray's backlog was overstated by at least $127 million; Accuray sales personnel entered into contingent contracts for CyberKnife systems that did not have a high probability of being booked as revenue; the Company lacked adequate internal controls and procedures to ensure that potential orders reported as backlog had a substantially high probability of being booked as revenue; and that based on the foregoing, defendants did not have a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Accuray, its backlog, earnings, operations and prospects. For more details, contact: Amanda C. Scuder, Esq. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com Web site: http://www.lawssb.com ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Kendall Law Group Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former US Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: MDRX) for investors who purchased stock that was artificially inflated between May 8, 2007 and February 13, 2008. According to the complaint, filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Allscripts and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws when the Company issued the newest version of Touchworks. Defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that they lacked the necessary resources to install the V-11 software at customer sites and that they had no historical basis to estimate the completion of V-11 or the impact that the sales would have on their 2007 revenues and earnings. Defendants also failed to disclose that the complexity of V-11 had materially and adversely lengthened the sales cycle and the revenue recognition cycle for the Company's V-11 sales contracts. They had no reasonable basis for their statements and opinions concerning future financial performance and projections, as they were experiencing adverse and continuing delays in the installation of V-11 software systems. On February 13, 2008, Allscripts released its actual 2007 financial results, reporting 2007 revenue of $281.9 million or $18 million below the Company's $300 million guidance confirmed in August 2007 and $5 million short of their November earnings guidance revision. During a conference call with investors that same day, Allscripts finally admitted to V-11 installation delays that were likely to negatively impact sales and earnings well into 2008. In response to those announcements, the price of Allscripts common shares fell $4.12 per share, closing at $11.27 on February 14, 2008. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. Kendall Law Group 3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728 Fax: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Howard G. Smith Files Mich. Stock Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX:CPD), has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Caraco between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges Caraco and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Caraco develops, manufactures, markets and distributes generic and private-label pharmaceuticals to wholesalers, distributors, warehousing and non-warehousing chain drugstores, and managed care providers throughout the United States. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate, among other things, that: -- the Company failed to meet the United States Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") current Good Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP") requirements; -- the Company failed to take corrective measures in order to have its manufacturing facilities comply with the FDA's cGMP requirements; -- the Company had failed to remedy repeat violations of FDA regulations previously observed and documented by the FDA; -- the foregoing significantly jeopardized the Company's ability to gain FDA approval of pending new drug applications; and -- as a result of the above, the Company would have to recall certain products. On June 25, 2009, the FDA announced that U.S. Marshals had seized drug products manufactured by Caraco from the Company's facilities. According to the FDA, this action followed Caraco's continued failure to meet the FDA's cGMP requirements, which assure the quality of manufactured drugs. In response to this news, shares of Caraco declined $1.79 per share, or approximately 43%, to close on June 25, 2009, at $2.39 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX: CPD) between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009, inclusive. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Caraco; Daniel H. Movens, Caraco's Chief Executive Officer, and a director; and Mukul Rathi, the Company's Interim Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting and failing to disclose material adverse facts. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose: -- that Caraco failed to meet the FDA's current Good Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP") requirements; -- that Caraco failed to take corrective measures to have its manufacturing facilities comply with the FDA's cGMP requirements; -- that Caraco failed to remedy repeat violations of FDA regulations the FDA had previously observed and documented; -- that as a result of the foregoing, Caraco's ability to gain FDA approval of pending new drug applications was considerably jeopardized; and -- that as a result of the above, Caraco would have to recall certain of its products. According to the complaint, on June 25, 2009, the FDA announced that because Caraco failed to meet the FDA's cGMP requirements, U.S. Marshalls seized drug products Caraco manufactured from several of the Company's facilities. Following this announcement, Caraco's stock fell significantly. For more details, contact: Amanda C. Scuder, Esq. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com Web site: http://www.lawssb.com GENZYME CORP: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Genzyme Corporation (Nasdaq: GENZ), between June 26, 2008 and July 21, 2009, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Genzyme's business, operations and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Genzyme securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 28, 2009. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com HURON CONSULTING: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a class-action lawsuit today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN) claiming the company and executives violated federal securities laws by issuing false financial statements, misleading investors and by sharing inaccurate financial statements with the public and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The lawsuit seeks to represent all shareholders who purchased Huron shares between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009. The suit alleges that the company and executives made false and misleading statements to investors, causing stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The company's financial statements did not comply with GAAP rules and failed to present an accurate assessment of Huron's operations due to improper accounting and false disclosure of revenues, the suit claims. Specifically, the suit claims the company wrongly accounted for payments made as part of acquisitions. The suit alleges Huron shocked investors on July 31 when it announced the company's financial statements for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 were unreliable and would be restated due to accounting errors. In the same announcement, the company announced the CEO, CFO and CAO had resigned because of the accounting scandal. Huron shares declined precipitously upon the announcement, falling $30.66 to $13.69 per share - a 69 percent drop on exceptionally heavy trading volume. The suit seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors. For more information, contact: Peter Borkon, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (510) 725-3000 e-mail: huron@hbsslaw.com Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/huron HURON CONSULTING: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009. The Complaint charges that Huron and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false statements regarding Huron's financial results. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company misaccounted for payments made as part of acquisitions. On July 31, 2009, Huron announced that it would restate its financial results from 2006 through 2008 and the first three months of 2009 due to its failure to properly account for earn- out payments made in connection with four of its acquisitions. As a result, Huron expected to dramatically reduce its revenue reported for the period by 48% from $120 million on an aggregate basis to $63 million. Huron further announced that the SEC had commenced an inquiry into the Company's allocation of chargeable hours related to its recognition of revenue. On this news, Huron's stock fell $30.66 per share to close at $13.69 per share on August 3, 2009, a decline of approximately 69%. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 215 West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (800) 797-5499 E-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/huronconsulting HURON CONSULTING: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Huron Consulting Group, Inc (Nasdaq: HURN) and certain of its top officials. The class action (1:09-cv-04734) was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Company between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009 inclusive. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Huron provides consulting services in the United States to help clients in diverse industries improve performance, comply with complex regulations, resolve disputes, recover from distress, leverage technology and stimulate growth. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Huron's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges the defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose: -- that shareholders of four businesses that Huron acquired between 2005-2007 redistributed portions of their acquisition-related payments among themselves and to certain Huron employees; -- that, as a result, the Company understated its non- cash compensation expenses; -- that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 31, 2009, Huron announced that the Company's financial statements for the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and the fiscal first quarter of 2009, should no longer be relied upon and will have to be restated as a result of the Company's accounting for certain acquisition-related payments received by the sellers in connection with the sale of certain acquired businesses that were subsequently redistributed among themselves and to other select Huron employees, which under accounting rules should have been classified as non-cash compensation expenses. In response to this news, on the next trading day, August 3, 2009, shares of Huron declined $30.66 per share, or 69.13%, to close at $13.69 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more information, contact: Teresa Webb, Esq. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017-5516 Phone: 888-476-6529 E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/ HURON CONSULTING: Rosen Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint charges Huron and certain of its former officers with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements because: -- shareholders of four businesses that Huron acquired during 2005-2007 redistributed portions of their acquisition-related payments among themselves and to certain Huron employees and consequently Huron understated its non-cash compensation expenses; -- the Huron's financial statements filed with the SEC did not comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and -- Huron lacked adequate internal and financial controls. When this adverse information was disclosed to the market, the complaint asserts that the Huron announced that the company's financial statements for fiscal 2006 through the first quarter of 2009 should no longer be relied upon and will have to be restated. In response to this news, shares of Huron declined $30.66 per share, or 69.13%, to close at $13.69 per share, on heavy trading volume. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060 Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ HURON CONSULTING: Sarraf Gentile Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarraf Gentile LLP announces that on August 4, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) and its top officers. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and seeks damages for violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Huron stock between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009, inclusive. According to the complaint, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Huron's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: -- shareholders of four businesses that Huron acquired between 2005-2007 redistributed portions of their acquisition-related payments among themselves and to certain Huron employees; -- the company understated its non-cash compensation expenses; -- the company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- the company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the above, the company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. According to the complaint, on July 31, 2009, Huron announced that the company's financial statements for fiscal 2006 through the first quarter of 2009 should no longer be relied upon and will have to be restated. In response to this news, shares of Huron declined $30.66 per share, or 69.13%, to close at $13.69 per share, on heavy trading volume. No class has yet been certified in the action. For more information, contact: Joseph Gentile, Esq. Sarraf Gentile LLP 116 John Street, Suite 2310 New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212-868-3610 Fax: 212-918-7967 E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com Web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/ HURON CONSULTING: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Huron Consulting Group Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009, inclusive. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Huron and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts. According to the complaint, the defendants made false statements concerning Huron's financial performance and its compliance with General Accepted Accounting Principles. Specifically, Huron misaccounted for payments made as part of acquisitions. Because the defendants deceived the public by overstating Huron's income and business prospects, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices. On July 31, 2009, Huron announced that its financial results from 2006 through 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 would have to be restated. In response to this announcement, the price of Huron's stock fell more than 69%. For more details, contact: Amanda C. Scuder, Esq. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com Web site: http://www.lawssb.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $793M Liability at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities were US$793 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$824 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009. The Company's non-current asbestos liabilities were US$800 million as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) Non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$627 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$658 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivables were US$657 million as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company is a diversified chemical company that delivers products and services to customers in about 160 countries. In 2008, the Company had annual sales of US$57.5 billion and employed about 46,000 people worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Mine Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- Various lawsuits and claims (including asbestos exposure claims) arising in the normal course of business are pending against Mine Safety Appliances Company. These lawsuits are primarily product liability claims. The Company is presently named as a defendant in about 2,500 lawsuits, primarily involving respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively, these lawsuits represent a total of about 11,900 plaintiffs. About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis. These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted in part from respirators that were negligently designed or manufactured by the Company. Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company makes protective equipment for workers in the military and miners, as well as the fire service, construction, and homeland security industries. The Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas masks, and head protection gear, much of which carries the MSA Safety Works brand. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing Against Olin ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to be defendants in various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2009. Clayton, Mo.-based Olin Corporation makes chemicals used to make bleach, water purification and swimming pool chemicals, pulp and paper processing agents, and PVC plastics. The Company also makes Winchester-branded ammunition. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10,173 Cases Ongoing v. RPM Units at May 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RPM International, Inc.'s subsidiaries faced a total of 10,173 active asbestos cases as of May 31, 2009, compared with a total of 11,202 cases as of May 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2009. Certain of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries, principally Bondex International, Inc., are defendants in various asbestos- related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state courts with the vast majority of current claims pending in six states: Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Maryland, Illinois and Ohio. These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos- related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos- containing products previously manufactured by the subsidiaries or others. The subsidiaries secured dismissals and settlements of 751 cases for the fourth quarter ended May 31, 2009, compared to a total of 664 cases dismissed and settled for the quarter ended May 31, 2008. The subsidiaries secured dismissals and settlements of 3,004 cases for the year ended May 31, 2009, compared to a total of 1,546 cases dismissed and settled for the year ended May 31, 2008. Of the 3,004 cases that were dismissed during the year ended May 31, 2009, 1,420 were non-malignancies or unknown disease cases that had been maintained on an inactive docket in Ohio and were administratively dismissed by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas during our second fiscal quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008. For the fourth quarter ended May 31, 2009, the subsidiaries made total payments of US$17.2 million relating to asbestos cases, which included defense-related payments paid during the quarter of US$6.5 million, compared to total payments of US$15 million relating to asbestos cases during the quarter ended May 31, 2008, which included defense-related payments paid during the quarter of US$7.7 million. For the year ended May 31, 2009, the subsidiaries made total payments of US$69.4 million relating to asbestos cases, which included defense-related payments paid during the year of US$26.2 million, compared to total payments of US$82.6 million relating to asbestos cases during the year ended May 31, 2008, which included defense-related payments paid during the year of US$39.7 million. During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, one payment totaling US$3.6 million was made to satisfy an adverse judgment in a previous trial that occurred in calendar 2006 in California. This payment, which included a significant amount of accrued pre-judgment interest as required by California law, was made on Dec. 8, 2008, about two and a half years after the adverse verdict and after all post-trial and appellate remedies had been exhausted. During fiscal 2008, the subsidiaries incurred higher year-over- year, defense-related payments as a result of implementing various changes to the Company's management and defense of asbestos claims, including a transition to a new claims intake and database service provider. The Company incurred duplicate defense-related payments about US$3 million during the second quarter of fiscal 2008. The transition was completed during the third quarter of fiscal 2008. Excluding defense-related payments, the average payment made to settle or dismiss a case was about US$14,000 for the quarter ended May 31, 2009 and US$11,000 for the quarter ended May 31, 2008. Medina, Ohio-based RPM International, Inc. owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings and sealants serving both industrial and consumer markets. The Company's industrial products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals. Industrial brands include Stonhard, Tremco, illbruck, Carboline, Day-Glo, Euco and Dryvit. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 415 Cases Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation, as of June 30, 2009, was a defendant in 415 active cases involving 3,015 plaintiffs (claims), according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2009. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was a defendant in 450 active cases involving 3,050 plaintiffs. As of March 31, 2009, the Company faced 425 active asbestos cases involving about 3,025 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009) About 2,600 of the claims as of June 30, 2009, or about 86 percent, of these claims are pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Of these claims, about 1,550 are pending in Mississippi and about 1,050 are pending in Texas. During the period ended June 30, 2009, the Company noted 145 claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 110 new claims. Amounts paid to resolved claims were US$6 million. During the period ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 400 claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 450 new claims. Amounts paid to resolved claims were US$13 million. Pittsburgh-based United States Steel Corporation produces and sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular, in North America and Central Europe. Operations in North America also include real estate management and development, transportation services and engineering and consulting services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Lincoln Drop to 17,582 at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at June 30, 2009, was a co- defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about 17,582 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 3,241 claims from those previously reported, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2009. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by 21,020 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 6,095 claims from those previously reported. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009) In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 37,992 of those claims were dismissed, 11 were tried to defense verdicts, four were tried to plaintiff verdicts, one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 559 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions. Cleveland, Ohio-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. manufactures welding and cutting products, including arc welding power sources, consumable electrodes, fluxes, fume extraction equipment, robotic welding systems, and wire feeders. Other welding products include regulators and torches. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Flowserve ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation is still a defendant in a number of pending lawsuits (which include, in many cases, multiple claimants) that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and distributed by the Company in the past. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as components of process equipment, and the Company says it does not believe that any significant emission of asbestos-containing fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. Irving, Tex.-based Flowserve Corporation manufactures pumps, valves, seals, automation and aftermarket services in support of global infrastructure industries, including oil and gas, chemical, power generation and water management, as well as general industrial markets where its products add value. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Tidewater Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tidewater Inc. continues to be party to various legal proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental matters. No other asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009. New Orleans-based Tidewater Inc. provides offshore service vessels and equipment to the global offshore energy industry through the operation of a diversified fleet of marine service vessels. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Has Cases in Miss. Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. continues to be one of several unrelated defendants in asbestos lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009. The suits allege that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under the terms of the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides contract drilling services to the worldwide energy industry. With the addition of the 10,000 foot, dynamically positioned, semisubmersible Ocean Courage in June 2009, the Company now has a fleet of 46 offshore rigs consisting of 31 semisubmersibles, 14 jack-ups and one drillship. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1.4T Injury Claims Remain v. Chicago Bridge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., as of June 30, 2009, still faced 1,400 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009. At March 31, 2009, the Company continued to be a defendant in 1,400 claims wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work it may had performed at various locations. (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009) Through June 30, 2009, the Company has been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,700 plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 3,300 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work it may have performed at various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Through June 30, 2009, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim. At June 30, 2009, the Company had accrued about US$1.9 million for liability and related expenses. Based in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an integrated engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) provider and process technology licensor. The Company provides conceptual design, technology, engineering, procurement, fabrication, construction, commissioning and associated maintenance services to customers in the energy and natural resource industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Still Party to Insurance Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Like many other insurers, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to be joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009. The plaintiffs assert that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases. Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. offers personal and commercial insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and workers' compensation. Through its Hartford Life subsidiary, the Company offers individual and group life insurance, annuities, asset management, retirement plans, and mutual funds (managed both in-house and by other groups including Wellington Management). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Records 10.7 Survival Ratio ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Financial Group, Inc.'s three year survival ratio, at June 30, 2009, was 10.7 times paid losses for asbestos reserves and 9.9 times paid losses for total asbestos and environmental reserves, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009. These ratios compare favorably with industry data published by Conning Research and Consulting, Inc. in June 2009, which indicate that A&E survival ratios were 8.1 for asbestos reserves and 7.6 for total industry A&E reserves at Dec. 31, 2008. Cincinnati, Ohio-based American Financial Group, Inc. is an insurance holding company with assets in excess of US$25 billion. Through the operations of Great American Insurance Group, the Company is engaged in property and casualty insurance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos in 20-30 Kabel Deutschland Sites ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-containing materials and polychlorinated biphenyls have been identified at about 20 to 30 of the facilities which Kabel Deutschland GmbH leases from Deutsche Telekom AG under Service Level Agreements. The Company said it believes these facilities have been refurbished by DTAG in accordance with applicable law. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009. COMPANY PROFILE: Kabel Deutschland GmbH Betastrasse 6-8 85774 Unterfoehring Germany Tel. No.: +49-89-960-100 Description: The Company provides digital TV and radio, Internet, and telephone connections via cable to more than a dozen of Germany's 16 states serving about 15 million homes. The Company also offers mobile phone service in conjunction with partner 02 (Germany). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Facing 555 Cases at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, LLC, as of June 30, 2009, are defendants in about 555 asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, 38 new cases were filed against the Company and 42 cases were resolved. Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims arising from these matters. Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings faced 549 asbestos cases as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009) Dallas-based Celanese Corporation is an integrated chemical and advanced materials company. The Company's business involves processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in Dean Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California, upheld the ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which favored the defense in a case involving asbestos filed by Michael and Valerie Dean. The case is styled Michael Dean et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Vedanta Society of Southern California et al., Defendants and Respondents. Judges Frances Rothschild, Robert M. Mallano, and Ferns entered judgment in Case No. B204227 on June 25, 2009. The Deans filed suit against the owner (the Vedanta Society of Southern California) and the property managers (Angel City West Property Management Services and Sandra Clark) of a home that they had leased and occupied for several years. The Deans claimed that mold and asbestos in the home had caused them to suffer various illnesses. After a jury returned a special verdict rejecting the Deans' claims, the superior court entered judgment for the defense, and the Deans timely appealed. The judgment was affirmed. Michael Dean, pro per, Valerie Dean, pro per; Gittler & Bradford (Stephen H. Marcus, Esq., and Joel S. Freeman, Esq.) represented Plaintiffs and Appellants. Del Mar Law Group (Christopher J. Workman, Esq., and Grace E. Jo, Esq., represented Defendants and Respondents. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Has 24T Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner Inc., as of June 30, 2009, continues to be a defendant in 24,000 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009. The Company faced about 24,000 pending asbestos product liability claims as of March 31, 2009, compared with 27,000 claims as of Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) Of the 24,000 outstanding claims at June 30, 2009, about 13,000 were pending in three jurisdictions where significant tort and judicial reform activities are underway. In the first six months of 2009, of about 3,400 claims resolved, only 104 (3.1 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In 2008, of about 17,500 claims resolved, only 210 (1.2 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. To date, the Company has paid US$63 million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received US$15.4 million in cash from insurers. The outstanding balance of US$47.6 million is expected to be fully recovered. Timing of the recovery is dependent on final resolution of a declaratory judgment action. At Dec. 31, 2008, insurers owed US$35.9 million in association with these claims. At June 30, 2009, the Company has an estimated liability of US$40.3 million for future claims resolutions, with a related asset of US$40.3 million to recognize the insurance proceeds receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims that have yet to be resolved. Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and decisions received to date in a declaratory judgment action. At Dec. 31, 2008, the comparable value of the insurance receivable and accrued liability was US$34.7 million. Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, cross- over vehicles, vans and light-trucks). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Inc. Still Party to CNA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general liability insurers continue to be parties to a declaratory judgment action filed on January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., by Continental Casualty Company and related companies (CNA). CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos- related product liability claims. The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage available to the Company including whether the available limits exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be apportioned. On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding the apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of making insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs pro rata to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage. Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is reserved for appellate review at the end of the action. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos- related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of insurance available for potential future asbestos-related product claims. Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, cross- over vehicles, vans and light-trucks). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Has 10,300 Lawsuits at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Inc., as of June 30, 2009, is involved in about 10,300 asbestos (about 42,800 claims), which are not-related to Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC), alleging injuries from asbestos. The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50 percent of the capital stock of PCC. Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about 11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of US$1 million per claim. On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the resolution of all current and future asbestos claims against it and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or operations (the 2003 Plan). The 2003 Plan would have required the Company to relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation, contribute 25 million shares of Corning common stock, and pay a total of US$140 million in six annual installments (present value US$131 million at March 2003), beginning one year after the plan's effective date, with 5.5 percent interest from June 2004. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying confirmation of the 2003 Plan. Several parties, including the Company, filed motions for reconsideration. These motions were argued on March 5, 2007, and the Bankruptcy Court reserved decision. On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the parties in the proceeding advised the Bankruptcy Court that they had made substantial progress on an amended plan of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) that resolved issues raised by the Court in denying the confirmation of the 2003 Plan and that would therefore make it unnecessary for the Bankruptcy Court to decide the motion for reconsideration. On March 27, 2008 and May 22, 2008, the parties further informed the Bankruptcy Court on the progress toward the Amended PCC Plan. The parties filed a partial tentative plan on Aug. 8, 2008. The parties continued to inform the Bankruptcy Court of the status of their discussions on the Amended PCC Plan. The complete proposed Amended PCC Plan and its ancillary documents were filed with the Bankruptcy Court on Jan. 29, 2009. The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be US$671 million at June 30, 2009, compared with an estimate of liability of US$662 million at Dec. 31, 2008. In the first quarter of 2008, the Company recorded a credit to asbestos settlement expense of US$327 million as a result of the increase in likelihood of a settlement under the Amended PCC Plan and a corresponding decrease in the likelihood of a settlement under the 2003 Plan. In the second quarter of 2008, the Company recorded a charge of US$9 million to reflect the change in value of the estimated liability under an Amended PCC Plan. Corning, N.Y.-based Corning Incorporated produces specialty glass and ceramics. Products include glass substrates for LCD televisions, computer monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates and filters for mobile emission control systems; optical fiber, cable, hardware & equipment for telecommunications networks; optical biosensors for drug discovery; and other advanced optics and specialty glass solutions for various industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Still Party to Aaron Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to be involved in asbestos litigation styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Company et al., which was filed in Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones County, in Mississippi. This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002. The complaints name as defendants certain of TODCO's subsidiaries and certain subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent (to whom TODCO may owe indemnity), and other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling-related products containing asbestos that are the subject of the complaints. The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each complaint ranges from about 20 to 70. The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act. The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. All of these cases were assigned to a special master who has approved a form of questionnaire to be completed by plaintiffs so that claims made would be properly served against specific defendants. As of July 29, 2009, about 700 questionnaires were returned and the remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire reply, have had their suits dismissed without prejudice. Of the respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by TODCO and its former parent which could lead to claims against either company. After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further required to file a separate and individual amended complaint naming only those defendants against whom they had a direct claim as identified in the questionnaire answers. Defendants not identified in the amended complaints were dismissed from the plaintiffs' litigation. To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as a defendant in their amended complaints. The Company continues to monitor a small group of these other cases. Houston-based Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water drilling and marine services to the oil and natural gas exploration and production industry in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and internationally. The Company serves major integrated energy companies, independent oil and natural gas operators and national oil companies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Still Ongoing v. Inactive Quaker Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quaker Chemical Corporation's unnamed inactive subsidiary continues to be a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. Acquired in 1978, this subsidiary sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. To date, the majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about US$12.2 million (excluding costs of defense). These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 for US$15 million and in the first quarter of 2007 for US$20 million. The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement are structured to be received over a four-year period with annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was received early in the second quarter of 2007, the second of which was received in the first quarter of 2008, and the third of which was received in the first quarter of 2009. Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corporation provides process chemicals, chemical specialties, services, and technical expertise to industries like steel, automotive, mining, aerospace, tube and pipe, coatings and construction materials. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8T Claims Still Pending v. Cytec at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cytec Industries Inc. faced 8,000 asbestos claims during the six months ended June 30, 2009, the same as for the three months ended March 31, 2009. The Company faced 8,100 claims asbestos during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) In the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company noted 100 closed claims. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 200 closed claims and 100 claims opened. The aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability was US$65.1 million as of June 30, 2009 and US$66.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The related insurance recovery receivable for the liability as well as claims for past payments was US$32.1 million at June 30, 2009 and US$33.1 million at Dec. 31, 2008. The asbestos liability included in the above amounts was US$50.1 million at June 30, 2009 and US$51.1 million at Dec. 31, 2008. The insurance receivable related to the liability as well as claims for past payments was US$30.7 million at June 30, 2009 and US$32 million at Dec. 31, 2008. Woodland Park, N.J.-based Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty chemicals and materials company, which sells products to diverse major markets for aerospace, adhesives, automotive and industrial coatings, chemical intermediates, inks, mining and plastics. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Facing 4,700 Claims at June 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International Ltd., as of June 26, 2009, faced about 4,700 asbestos cases pending against it and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009. About 4,700 asbestos liability cases were pending against the Company and its subsidiaries as of March 27, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) The Company and some of its subsidiaries are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a subsidiary's property. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based on allegations of past distribution of heat-resistant industrial products incorporating asbestos or the past distribution of industrial valves that incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets or packing. Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial since 2008, the Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one case returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million, which included both compensatory and punitive damages. The Company has appealed the verdict and said it believes that it will ultimately be overturned. Schaffhausen, Switzerland-based Tyco International Ltd. operates in the following business segments: ADT Worldwide, Flow Control, Fire Protection Services, Electrical and Metal Products, and Safety Products. In addition, Safety Products manufactures products installed and serviced by ADT Worldwide and Fire Protection Services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Still Party to Insurance Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), is still involved in asbestos-related insurance lawsuits filed in various courts. In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against TPC and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va. The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts (collectively, Statutory and Hawaii Actions). In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations (Common Law Claims) have also been asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC. The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory Actions, the Common Law Claims and an additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions. In May 2004, the parties reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future Common Law Claims against TPC. Among the contingencies for each of these settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the bankruptcy court (the 1986 Orders). On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the Clarifying Order). On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order while vacating that portion of the order that required all future direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before proceeding in state or federal court. Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006 ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the Clarifying Order. On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which were denied. TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted. On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Company, reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision. SPC is a party to pending direct action cases in Texas state court asserting common law claims. All those cases that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court. SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio State court. Those actions have all been dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts. Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides commercial auto, property, workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial liability coverage to companies in North America and the United Kingdom. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Has $2.79B Net Reserve at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves amounted to US$2.791 billion at and for the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$3.596 billion at and for the three months ended June 30, 2008. The Company's net asbestos reserves were US$2.853 billion at and for the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$3.672 billion at and for the three months ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first six months of 2009 were US$123 million, compared with US$138 million in the same period of 2008. About 20 percent of total net paid asbestos losses in the first six months of 2009 (19 percent in the first six months of 2008) related to policyholders with whom the Company had entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company's liability. In December 2008, the Company completed the sale of Unionamerica, which comprised its United Kingdom-based runoff insurance and reinsurance businesses. Included in the claims and claim adjustment expense reserves transferred to the purchaser were gross asbestos reserves of US$330 million and net asbestos reserves of US$232 million. Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides commercial auto, property, workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial liability coverage to companies in North America and the United Kingdom. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 96.6T Claims Ongoing v. Goodyear at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faced 96,600 pending asbestos claims during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with 99,000 pending claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company faced 98,400 pending asbestos claims during the three months ended March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by the Company or present in certain of its facilities. These lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, the Company has disposed of about 75,200 claims by defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded 800 new claims filed and 3,200 claims settled or dismissed. Asbestos payments were US$10 million. The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled US$339 million through June 30, 2009 and US$325 million through Dec. 31, 2008. The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$136 million at June 30, 2009 and US$132 million at Dec. 31, 2008. The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims and related defense costs was US$73 million at June 30, 2009 and US$71 million at Dec. 31, 2008. Its liability with respect to asserted claims and related defense costs was US$63 million at June 30, 2009 and US$61 million at Dec. 31, 2008. At June 30, 2009, the Company estimates that it is reasonably possible that its liabilities, net of its estimate for probable insurance recoveries, could exceed its recorded amounts by US$10 million. The Company recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$68 million at June 30, 2009, compared with US$65 million at Dec. 31, 2008. Of these amounts, US$9 million at June 30, 2009 and US$10 million at Dec. 31, 2008 were included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable. The Company said it believes that at June 30, 2009, it had at least US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products claims, in addition to limits of available primary insurance policies. A portion of the availability of the excess level policies is included in the US$68 million insurance receivable recorded at June 30, 2009. The Company also had about US$15 million in aggregate limits for products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per occurrence basis and defense costs available with its primary insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at June 30, 2009. Based in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufactures tires. Organized into four geographic segments, the Company operates a combined 60 plants worldwide, and has about 1,600 retail tire and auto centers. The Company sells tires for the replacement market as well as to the world's automakers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Inc. Facing 25 Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. currently faces 25 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2009. The Company faced 26 pending asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009) Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to asbestos containing materials. To date, four asbestos cases have been dismissed. One new asbestos case was filed in the second quarter of 2009. The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuits to date. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of asbestos and silica cases was about US$100,000, the majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. under the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. New York-based Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based company that develops, produces and markets specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products and supporting systems and services. The Company has two reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Lorillard Filter Actions Set for Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of July 27, 2009, six asbestos- related Filter Cases are scheduled for trial, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009. As of April 27, 2009, eight asbestos-related Filter Cases were scheduled for trial. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) Claims have been brought against the Company and its subsidiary Lorillard Tobacco Company by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 33 such cases. The Company is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name Lorillard Tobacco. Since Jan. 1, 2007, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of about US$17.4 million in settlements to finally resolve 75 claims. The related expense was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income. In the single case tried since Jan. 1, 2007, a jury in the District Court of Bexar County, Tex., returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco during September 2008 in the case of Young v. Lorillard Tobacco Company. Greensboro, N.C.-based Lorillard, Inc. manufactures cigarettes in the United States. Brands include Newport, Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold, and Max. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Still Involved in Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eastman Chemical Company and its operations continue to be parties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings related to exposure to asbestos. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009. Kingsport, Tenn.-based Eastman Chemical Company produces chemicals, fibers, and plastics. Its products go into items like food and medical packaging, films, and toothbrushes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Facing 10,700 Cases at June 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Covidien Public Limited Company's subsidiary, Mallinckrodt Inc., faced about 10,700 pending asbestos liability cases as of June 26, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009. As of March 27, 2009, Mallinckrodt faced about 10,600 pending asbestos liability cases. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. Most of the cases involve product liability claims, based principally on allegations of past distribution of products incorporating asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims were never substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims. Dublin, Ireland-based Covidien Public Limited Company manufactures and sells healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings. The Company operates its business through four segments: Medical Devices, Imaging Solutions, Pharmaceutical Products, and Medical Supplies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Morton Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, issued split rulings in the case involving asbestos styled Robert A. Morton, Plaintiff v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, Defendant. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema entered judgment in Case No. 1:08cv942 (LMB/TRJ) on June 23, 2009. In this action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Robert Morton appealed the decision of Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, to suspend his pension payments based on its finding that he engaged in disqualifying employment while receiving his pension. Mr. Morton worked for over 38 years in the sheet metal industry before officially retiring in 2004. According to the administrative record, he initially inquired about his pension rights with the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund (Pension Fund), on Aug. 9, 1999. On Sept. 22, 1999, Mr. Morton was notified that he was vested and was credited with 34 years and eight months of service, and 33 years and seven months of Future Service. Nearly five years later, Mr. Morton notified the Fund that he intended to retire in September 2004. On Sept. 20, 2004, the Pension Fund advised Mr. Morton that he had been credited with 38 years of pension credit between August 1965 and May 2003, of which 36 years and 11 months was future service credit. Mr. Morton did not respond to the Sept. 20, 2004 letter, and on Nov. 1, 2004, the Pension Fund wrote Morton again. On Jan. 31, 2005, the Pension Fund again notified him that it had not received the forms and that his file would be deactivated if he did not return the forms. Mr. Morton was notified that his file had been deactivated on April 8, 2005. On May 3, 2005, Mr. Morton wrote the Pension Fund regarding his eligibility for the 55/30 Pension. Mr. Morton received his pension without incident for the next two years. During that time, however, he began working for Champion Environmental Services, Inc., a company that provided asbestos abatement services. On Aug. 27, 2007, he received a letter from the Pension Fund requesting that he sign a Social Security release to confirm that he was still eligible for pension payments. He signed the release on Sept. 13, 2007. On Oct. 16, 2007, Mr. Morton was notified that his December 2007 pension payment was being suspended because his employment with Champion constituted disqualifying employment under the Plan. Specifically, the Pension Fund found that because the abatement services work done by Champion was also being done by contributing employers, it was disqualifying employment. On April 3, 2008, Mr. Morton gave notice to the Fund that he was appealing its decision to suspend his pension benefits because of his employment with Champion. Mr. Morton's counsel filed his formal notice of appeal on June 12, 2008. The appeal letter repeated that Mr. Morton was no longer employed by Champion and was eligible for his pension and also made substantive objections to the suspension. On June 26, 2008, the Appeals Committee of the Pension Fund met and considered Mr. Morton's appeal. On July 1, 2008, the Appeals Committee informed Mr. Morton's counsel that the committee had denied Mr. Morton's appeal of his suspension. On Sept. 11, 2008, Mr. Morton timely filed for judicial review of that decision, seeking a judgment declaring that the Pension Fund must provide benefits under the Plan, back pay and pre- judgment interest from the denial date of Dec. 1, 2007, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. Both parties have moved for judgment on the basis of the administrative record. Accordingly, the parties' motions for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. Richard Dennis Carter, Esq., of Carter & Lay PLLC in Alexandria, Va., represented Robert A. Morton. Stephen Mark Rosenblatt, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, Alexandria, Va., represented the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liabilities at $19.64Mil in June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$19,644,000 at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2009. The Company's long-term asbestos liabilities were at US$19,644,000 at March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$4,632,000 at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. Long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$19,416,000 at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. Current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$4,632,000 at June 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. Rogers, Conn.-based Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures high performance, specialty-material-based products for applications including: portable communications, communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment, consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong $178.7M Tax Refund OK'd July 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Armstrong World Industries, Inc. says that, in July 2009, the Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S. Congress approved the tax refund, received in October 2007, of US$178.7 million for federal income taxes paid over the preceding 10 years. The refunds resulted from the carryback of a portion of net operating losses created by the funding of the Asbestos PI Trust in October 2006. Therefore, in the third quarter of 2009, a reduction to income tax expense of US$10 million and a decrease in non-current deferred tax assets of US$144.6 million will be recorded. A corresponding decrease in the liability for previously unrecognized tax benefits of US$154.6 million will also be recorded, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2009. Lancaster, Pa.-based Armstrong World Industries, Inc. designs and manufactures floors, ceilings, and cabinets. In 2008, the Company's consolidated net sales totaled US$3.4 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Spends $4.027M for Claims at July 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation recorded asbestos coverage litigation expenses of US$4,027,000 during the three months ended July 3, 2009, compared with US$3,970,000 during the three months ended June 27, 2008. The Company recorded asbestos-related expenses of US$4.6 million during the three months ended April 3, 2009, compared with US$3.4 million during the three months ended March 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009) Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$6,993,000 during the six months ended July 31, 2008, compared with US$7,109,000 during the six months ended June 27, 2008. During the three months ended July 3, 2009, asbestos liability and defense costs were US$1,482,000. During the three months ended June 27, 2009, asbestos liability and defense income was US$715,000. During the six months ended July 3, 2009, asbestos liability and defense costs were US$3,127,000. During the six months ended June 27, 2008, asbestos liability and defense income was US$437,000. Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation makes fluid-handling products and technologies. Through its global operating subsidiaries, the Company makes positive displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power generation, commercial marine, global naval and general industrial markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Cites $14.3M Expenses at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc.'s asbestos-related expenses were US$14.3 million during the quarter ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$12.2 million during the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Asbestos-related expenses were US$27.9 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$24.3 million during the six months ended June 30, 2008. The Company's current asbestos liability was US$76.1 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$85.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. Its long-term asbestos liability was US$358.6 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$380.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$65.3 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$67.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$203.1 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$239.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. Payments of asbestos claims and expenses, net of insurance receipts, were US$19.8 million in the first half of 2009, compared with US$1.8 million in the first half of 2008. Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. produces sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other engineered products for use in critical applications by industries worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gladstone Accrues No Liabilities at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gladstone Commercial Corporation, during the six months ended June 30, 2009, did not accrue any asbestos-related liability, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009. The Company has accrued a liability and corresponding increase to the cost of the related properties for disposal related to all properties constructed prior to 1985 that have, or may have, asbestos present in the building. The Company accrued a liability during the six months ended June 30, 2008 of US$245,199 related to properties acquired during the period, which reflected the present value of the future asset retirement obligation. The Company also recorded expense, including discontinued operations, of US$35,476 during the three months ended June 30, 2009 (US$70,845 during the six months ended June 30, 2009) and US$32,764 during the three months ended June 30, 2008 ($63,232 during the six months ended June 30, 2008) related to the cumulative accretion of the obligation. COMPANY PROFILE: Gladstone Commercial Corporation 1521 Westbreach Drive, Suite 200 McLean, Va. 22102 United States Tel. No.: (703) 287-5800 Description: The Company was incorporated for the purpose of investing in and owning net leased industrial and commercial real property and selectively making long-term industrial and commercial mortgage loans. At June 30, 2009, the Company owned 65 properties totaling 6.3 million square feet, and had one mortgage loan outstanding. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Against Pride Int'l. Ongoing in Miss. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos cases against Pride International Inc. are still ongoing in the Circuit Court of the State of Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009. Since 2004, certain of the Company's subsidiaries have been named, along with numerous other defendants, in several complaints that have been filed in Mississippi by several hundred individuals that allege that they were employed by some of the named defendants between 1965 and 1986. The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used products containing asbestos in their operations and seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Nine individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been identified as allegedly having worked for the Company. Houston-based Pride International, Inc. is an offshore drilling contractor. As of July 29, 2009, the Company operated a fleet of 44 rigs, consisting of two deepwater drillships, 12 semisubmersible rigs, 27 jackups and three managed deepwater drilling rigs. It also has four deepwater drillships under construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Has 25,000 Cases in 7 States ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary Fairmont Supply Company, a distributor of industrial supplies, still is a defendant in 25,000 asbestos claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey and Illinois. Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos cases. For the six months ended June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2008, payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material. Canonsburg, Pa.-based CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal mining company with some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves, mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and produces about 65 million tons of coal annually. The Company mines high BTU coal, which burns cleaner than lower grades. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Award Ruling in Case v. Scapa ---------------------------------------------------------------- A New Jersey appellate court upheld the Civil Division of Superior Court's ruling, which awarded monetary damages in favor of Walter L. Patton, the estate of Harry H. Wilson and the estate of Walter W. Grube in an asbestos case filed against Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc., myCentralJersey.com reports. The jury awarded Mr. Patton US$514,220, the estate Mr. Wilson US$76,102 and the estate of Mr. Grube US$259,045. Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc., the manufacturer of the felts that dried the wet rolls of paper on Riegel Paper Mills' paper machines, appealed the awards because of their size, the jury's failure to apportion liability to the other defendants in the complex litigation and cumulative errors in the trial. Mr. Patton, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Grube were former employees at the mill. Mr. Patton was a millwright between 1956 and 1994, Mr. Wilson operated paper machines for two decades starting in the late 1970s, and Mr. Grube was a lathe operator from 1939 to 1982. According to court papers, Scapa made and sold dryer felts containing asbestos from the 1950s through the late 1970s. Although Scapa knew asbestos fibers could be released from the felts, the Company did not place warnings on the felts, according to court papers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Pensioner Denied GBP155T Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Terence Charles Abraham, a pensioner from Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England, was denied GBP155,000 in asbestos compensation, the Evening Telegraph reports. Mr. Abraham suffers from mesothelioma, which he attributed to his years as an apprentice plumber in the early 1960s. He later switched careers to become a lorry driver, retired four years ago but soon afterwards began suffering intermittent chest pain. He was diagnosed with cancer in July 2008. Mrs. Justice Swift, who dismissed Mr. Abraham's damages claim against two of his former employers, said he remained in "reasonable health" despite his condition, giving composed and articulate evidence from the witness box. The 68-year-old Mr. Abraham sued the two Wellingborough businesses for whom he worked between 1956 and 1961. They were G. Ireson and Son (Properties) Ltd between 1956 and 1961 and Stanley Reynolds, trading as Reynolds & Spademan, between about 1962 and 1965. His QC claimed Mr. Abraham was exposed to asbestos while carrying out tasks such as soldering pipes, during which an "asbestos scorch pad" was used. On July 31, 2009, Mrs. Justice Swift said that asbestos material was the "invariable" cause of mesothelioma and, although the amount of exposure was "modest" in his case, the "overwhelming likelihood" was that asbestos was the cause. Mr. Abraham's use of the scorch pads was restricted to his time with Reynolds & Spademan, the judge ruled, and his exposure there was "modest and infrequent." She added that any asbestos exposure while he was working for G. Ireson and Son was very light. The judge said, "While I have the greatest sympathy for Mr. Abraham who, as I have found, contracted the deadly condition of mesothelioma decades ago as a result of asbestos exposure at work, I find that his claim against both defendants must fail." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Potsdam Civic Center Asbestos Probe Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New York law firm of Belluck and Fox LLP investigates the connection between Sharon M. LaDuke and the Potsdam Civic Center in Potsdam, N.Y., in an asbestos suit filed Ms. LaDuke's family, the Watertown Daily Times reports. Ms. LaDuke, a longtime village employee, died of mesothelioma. The firm is checking whether an old boiler and asbestos-wrapped pipes were properly removed from the Potsdam Civic Center in 1999 and 2000. Joseph W. Belluck, Esq., a partner in the law firm, represents the LaDuke family. In a 54-page lawsuit filed in State Supreme Court, Belluck and Fox names 68 defendants it alleges are responsible for the death of Ms. LaDuke. Among the companies named in the suit are Cleaver-Brooks Co., a boiler manufacturing firm in Wisconsin. The suit does not name the village of Potsdam, but Mr. Belluck said he expects the village to be added later. He said his firm is investigating possible ways that Ms. LaDuke could have been exposed to asbestos fibers, including through her father's job at Alcoa Inc. in Massena, N.Y., and at her place of work at the Potsdam Civic Center. According to information provided by village officials, a new Cleaver-Brooks boiler was installed in the Civic Center in 1977. Cleaver-Brooks, which in the past also did business under the name of Aqua-Chem, has been at the center of asbestos-related lawsuits across the country for years. However, village Trustee Steven W. Yurgartis said he does not believe the unit installed at the Civic Center in 1977 contained asbestos. He said, "A service technician from JW Stevens, the company who sold the boiler originally, when contacted by phone, thought that none of the boiler parts used asbestos." Mr. Yurgartis said that asbestos insulation in several downstairs locations, including the boiler room, was removed in 1999 and in 2000 the old boiler itself was taken out by village work crews. Trustees soon will decide whether to spend US$20,000 to remove more asbestos from the village courtroom. The room is currently sealed off from the public. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Cites $2.7Mil Recoveries at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc., in the first six months of 2009, recorded asbestos- and lead-related recoveries of US$2.7 million (US$1.8 million or US$0.04 per diluted share, net of income taxes), according to a Company press release dated Aug. 4, 2009. Insurance recoveries relate to amounts the Company received from certain of its former insurance carriers, and relate principally to the recovery of prior lead pigment and asbestos litigation defense costs incurred by the Company. These recoveries aggregated US$1.7 million in the first six months of 2008 (US$1.1 million, or US$0.02 per diluted share, net of income taxes). Dallas-based NL Industries, Inc. is engaged in the component products (security products, furniture components and performance marine components), chemicals (TiO2) and other businesses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kingsteignton Man's Death Linked to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Torquay, England, heard that the death of Roy Capener, a 72-year-old retired company director from Kingsteignton, Devon, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Herald Express reports. Mr. Capener was exposed to asbestos during his working life, which included removing lagging from boilers. He died at home in Rydon Acres on July 26, 2009. A post mortem examination confirmed Mr. Capener from malignant pleural mesothelioma. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waterlooville Man's Death Linked to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at the Portsmouth Guildhall heard that the death of John Fuller, an 80-year-old former dockyard from Waterlooville, Hampshire, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, The News reports. After 60 years of exposure to asbestos, Mr. Fuller died in Havant War Memorial Hospital on Feb. 12, 2009. He left school at the age of 15 and became an apprentice in Portsmouth dockyard. The inquest heard that Mr. Fuller did "dogsbody work" in the engine rooms of various ships. This included removing asbestos from pipes. A pathologist's report stated that Mr. Fuller had mesothelioma. Coroner David Horsley said, "It follows the pattern of mesothelioma, it lies dormant for many years before leading to a very rapid death." The inquest heard that Mr. Fuller fought successfully for compensation before he died. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEM Handling Breach Case Ongoing v. Hicks ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Indiana Department of Environmental Management's lawsuit against Art Hicks Jr., over Mr. Hicks' failure to remove asbestos from the American Lawnmower factory site prior to demolition, is ongoing, the Star Press reports. Mr. Hicks also allegedly failed to provide IDEM written notification of the demolition. In April 2009, the city of Muncie, Ind.'s Unsafe Building Hearing Authority imposed US$10,000 in civil penalties against Mr. Hicks for failing to meet cleanup deadlines at the abandoned factory at 705 E. 18th St. His next appearance before the authority is scheduled for Sept. 15, 2009. After Mr. Hicks missed a deadline of Sept. 17, 2008 to tear down the property, Circuit Court 5 Judge Chris Teagle in November 2008 gave him until the end of 2008 to finish the job. Mr. Hicks' attorney, Bruce Munson, Esq., has said progress is being made. City officials said recently that Mr. Hicks continues to clean up the site. Mr. Hicks recently cleaned up the former Car Doctors auto salvage yard at 1004 S. Burlington Drive under the threat of a US$229,000 fine and several weekends in jail. The threat was made by Circuit Court 1 Judge Marianne Vorhees in a lawsuit brought against Mr. Hicks by IDEM, whose cleanup order he had ignored since 2006. The city has identified the former American Lawnmower factory as one of Muncie's 10 worst brownfields (abandoned or under- utilized property that is not being reused because of hazardous substances). An environmental consultant hired by the city in 2008 reported that the oldest of the three buildings remaining at the site was a foundry built between 1896 and 1902. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Upholds Ruling in Cross Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County, Common Pleas Court, which denied American Optical Corporation's motion to dismiss an asbestos lawsuit filed by Milton B. Cross. The case is styled Milton B. Cross, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. A-Best Products Co., et al., Defendants. Appeal by American Optical Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Judges James C. Sweeney, Melody J. Stewart, and Mary J. Boyle entered judgment in Case No. 90388 on June 25, 2009. This asbestos-related case was on appeal after the trial court issued a supplemental clarifying journal entry on May 18, 2009, based on the Appeal Court's limited remand ordered on April 29, 2009. The issue to be decided was whether the R.C. 2307.93(A)(3) savings clause applied Mr. Cross' claim, thus allowing him to maintain his asbestos-related action against American Optical Corporation (AOC). On Aug. 19, 2000, Mr. Cross sued AOC, a manufacturer of asbestos containing protective clothing. On Aug. 10, 2007, AOC filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Cross' claim. Mr. Cross counter argued that retroactive application of Am.Sub.H.B. 292 was unconstitutional as applied to him, citing R.C. 2307.93(A)(3)(a). On Sept. 7, 2007, the trial court summarily denied AOC's motion to dismiss Cross's claim. AOC appealed and the Appeals Court issued a limited remand with instructions to the trial court to clarify its Sept. 7, 2007 dismissal. On May 18, 2009, the trial court issued a clarifying entry. The judgment was affirmed. Susan M. Audey, Esq., Jeffrey A. Healy, Esq., of Tucker Ellis & West, L.L.P. in Cleveland, Ohio, represented American Optical Corporation. Anthony Gallucci, Esq., Jaeson L. Taylor, Esq., Eric C. Wiedemer, Esq., of Kelley & Ferraro, L.L.P. in Cleveland, Ohio, represented Milton B. Cross and others. Richard D. Schuster, Esq., Nina I. Webb-Lawton, Esq., Michael J. Hendershot, Esq., of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P. in Columbus, Ohio, represented Dana Companies, LLC (f/k/a Dana Corporation). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rexnord Has $90M Claims Reserve at June 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord LLC's long-term reserve for asbestos claims was US$90 million as of June 27, 2009, the same as for the period ended March 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2009. The Company's long-term insurance receivable for asbestos claims was US$90 million as of June 27, 2009, the same as for the period ended March 31, 2009. Milwaukee-based Rexnord LLC is an industrial company comprised of two strategic platforms: Power Transmission and Water Management, with about 5,800 employees worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler June 30 Liability at $336.5M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos liability was US$336,556,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$355,779,000 as of Dec. 26, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2009. Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos-related liability was US$339,834,000 as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009) The Company's long-term asbestos insurance recovery receivable was US$276,060,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$281,540,000 as of Dec. 26, 2008. During the quarter ended June 30, 2009, the Company's net asbestos-related provision was US$1,756,000. During the quarter ended June 27, 2008, the Company's net asbestos-related gain was US$18,275,000. During the fiscal six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company's net asbestos-related provision was US$3,506,000. During the fiscal six months ended June 27, 2008, the Company's net asbestos-related gain was US$32,463,000. Zug, Switzerland-based Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering and construction contractor and power equipment supplier. The Company employs over 14,000 professionals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Accrued Liability at $24.39M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liability was US$24,399,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$23,758,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release dated Aug. 5, 2009. The Company's accrued asbestos liabilities were US$23,673,000 as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009) Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc. manufactures and distributes replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abshire Lawsuit Filed v. DuPont on July 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Abshire and Richard Abshire, on July 31, 2009, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit on behalf of Albert Abshire against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. The suit alleges that Albert Abshire died from mesothelioma and pleural asbestosis after he was exposed to asbestos during the course of his career. Margaret Abshire and Richard Abshire blame DuPont for allowing its employees to work around asbestos when it knew asbestos could cause cancer and other deadly diseases. In addition, DuPont failed to warn its employees of the dangers of asbestos. Albert Abshire died on Dec. 23, 2008, the complaint says. Margaret Abshire and Richard Abshire seek exemplary and punitive damages, plus costs, interest at the legal rate and other relief to which she may be entitled. J. Keith Hyde, Esq., and Darren Brown, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will be representing the Abshires. Case No. D184-598 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Drennan Action v. 24 Firms Filed on July 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Delia M. Drennan, on behalf of Ricky Bob Drennan, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 24 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., on July 31, 2009, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Defendants include Armstrong International Inc., CBS Corp., Clark-Reliance Corp., Crane Co., Flowserve Inc., Ford Motor Co., Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Garlock Sealing Technologies, Goulds Pumps, Guard-Line Inc., Honeywell International, Icon Management Systems, and IMO Industries. Ms. Drennan alleges Mr. Drennan inhaled asbestos fibers during his work at Burton Shipyard with products designed, manufactured or distributed by the defendant companies. Ms. Drennan blames the defendant companies for a number of negligent acts, including their failure to warn Mr. Drennan of the dangers associated with asbestos and their failure to provide Mr. Drennan with instructions on what would be safe apparel to wear while working around asbestos. In addition, Ms. Drennan claims companies conspired to withhold medical data from the public about the dangers of asbestos and instead conspired to release misleading and incorrect information. The suit also alleges Burton Shipyard failed to provide safe equipment for Mr. Drennan's use, failed to provide adequate safety measures and protection against the asbestos dust, failed to warn Mr. Drennan of the inherent dangers of asbestos contamination, failed to maintain the environmental conditions of its work site and failed to follow state and government statutes. Ms. Drennan seeks general damages, plus costs, interest at the legal rate and other relief to which she may be entitled. Jeffrey B. Simon, Esq., and Laura Cabutto, Esq., of Simon, Eddins and Greenstone in Dallas and Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., and Colin D. Moore, Esq., of Provost Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will be representing the Drennans. Case No. A184-595 has been assigned to Judge Bob Wortham of the 58th District Court. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armistead Files Injury Case v. BAE Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Armistead's lawsuit against BAE Systems Land, alleging workplace exposure to asbestos, is ongoing, Asbestos.com reports. The 60-year-old Mr. Armistead was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2008. In the suit, he seeks more than US$500,000 from the global defense, security and aerospace company, stating he was not provided proper protection from asbestos exposure or warned of the dangers associated with the mineral while working at BAE Systems' Barrow Shipyard. Mr. Armistead began working at the Barrow Shipyard in 1965, spending most of his time in the machine and engine shops. Both shops had asbestos-lined roofs and cladding on the walls. Mr. Armistead then worked on the construction of a submarine, in close proximity to workers mixing and applying asbestos covering. The Barrow Shipyard is a 169-acre facility used to design, build, test and commission large warships and submarines. BAE Systems refers to the 130-year-old shipyard as "an industrial success that is recognized worldwide." The shipyard created the United Kingdom's first submarine. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyers Move to Oppose Subpoena on Segarra ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos lawyers at Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C., and Provost Umphrey in Beaumont, Tex., are opposing a subpoena on radiologist Jay Segarra, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. The firms have moved on behalf of clients to intervene in national asbestos litigation so they can oppose the subpoena, but they have not named the clients. In Motley Rice's July 9, 2009 motion, John Herrick argued that if Mr. Segarra obeys an order to produce X-ray records he will violate his privilege as a consulting expert. Bryan Blevins Jr., Esq., of Provost Umphrey adopted and joined the motion on June 23, 2009. According to Union Carbide Corporation lawyer Marcy Croft, Esq., of Jackson, Miss., Motley Rice lawyers say they represent up to 10,000 clients who need to intervene. On July 29, Ms. Croft asked U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno to require names. Judge Robreno presides over tens of thousands of asbestos cases from around the nation by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation. He took charge of the docket in 2008 and began enforcing a rule requiring each plaintiff to file separate suits instead of a single suit against many defendants. Judge Robreno speeded up processes for settling and dismissing cases, and reported in May 2009 that about 500,000 claims had been resolved in four months. In February 2009, Judge Robreno ordered Mr. Segarra and two other radiologists to produce records of all plaintiffs who relied on their diagnoses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chairamonte Convicted for Safety Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Patrick J. Clifford of the Superior Court in Middletown, Conn., on Aug. 4, 2009, sentenced Donald Chairamonte to 20 months in prison and ordered him to pay more than US$15,000 in restitution, The Hartford Courant reports. The 49-year-old Mr. Chairamonte pleaded guilty in June 2009 to charges including illegal dumping, illegal disposal of asbestos, reckless endangerment and criminal trespass. In the most recent cases, Assistant State's Attorney Tamberlyn E.C. Conopask said Mr. Chairamonte's dumping plagued a dozen communities throughout Connecticut, including Waterbury, Westbrook, Bethany and West Haven. The debris came from home improvement jobs in Essex, New Haven, and East Haven. Ms. Conopask said Mr. Chairamonte threatened the public's health and the environment when he dumped roofing debris in November 2007 at a business on Spencer Plain Road in Westbrook next door to the Saybrook Convalescent Hospital. Most of the pile was made up of asbestos. Ms. Conopask told Judge Clifford on Aug. 4, 2009 that the landowner spent more than US$11,000 cleaning up the debris. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glass Decorator's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- A July 23, 2009 inquest at Windsor, Berkshire, England, ruled that the death of John Couzens, a 62-year-old glass decorator, was linked to exposure to asbestos, getbracknell reports. Mr. Couzens, of Quintilis in Hanworth, died in March 29, 2009 after developing cancer caused by long-term exposure to the material during his work as a glass decorator, Coroner Peter Bedford has ruled. Mr. Couzens was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2007. ASBESTOS ALERT: Lebanon Hardboard Fined $63T for Safety Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, in July 2009, fined Lebanon Hardboard LLC US$63,562 for allowing the open accumulation of asbestos-containing waste material at a manufacturing facility that burned in October 2008, the Democrat Herald reports. According to the DEQ, Lebanon Hardboard's facility contained 106,000 square feet of asphalt roofing and burned on Oct. 6, 2008. The Company then failed to secure the waste in leak-tight containers, keep it wet to reduce movement by air, or to dispose of it. The material remains on the ground at the site. If Lebanon Hardboard LLC has a licensed asbestos contractor properly abate all of the openly accumulated waste at the facility, the DEQ will consider recalculating the costs as delayed rather than avoided and will reduce the civil penalty accordingly. ********* 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, 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 * * *