/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090911.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 11, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 180 Headlines AGILENT TECH: Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal Pending AGILENT TECH: Faces Merged Varian Shareholder Suit in California AMTRUST BANK: Borrowers Sue To Recover $350 Table Funding Fee BERNARD L. MADOFF: Law Student Settles with Madoff's Brother BEST BUY: Sued For Refusing To Sell TV at Misprinted Sale Price BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Sued for Cheating Policyholders in D. Ariz. CASELLA WASTE: BMR Discriminatory Practices Suit Remains Pending CHILDREN'S PLACE: Oct. 16 Final Hearing Set for Stockholder Deal CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement of "Fong" Calif. Labor Suit Pending H&R BLOCK: Defending Remanded Refund Anticipation Loan Lawsuit H&R BLOCK: Appeal to Junked Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending H&R BLOCK: SCC Still Faces Suits Over Pre-Termination Activities H&R BLOCK: Unit Appeals "Do Right's Plant Growers" Certification H&R BLOCK: Lawsuits v. Unit Over Peace of Mind Program Pending IPO LITIGATION: $195 Million Fee Request Draws Fire NETAPP INC: Motion to Dismiss Shareholders Suit Pending in Del. NETAPP INC: Data Domain's Shareholders Suit Pending in Calif. REGIONS BANK: Sued for Unfairly Maximizing Overdraft Fees TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued in S.D. Ohio for Useless Data Service VONAGE HOLDINGS: Seeks Arbitration of Consolidated Consumer Suit WALGREEN CO: Sued for Discrimination After Firing Black Workers Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jones Case Filed in Jefferson County on Aug. 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harper Case v. 18 Companies Filed in Jefferson ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9 Actions Filed in Madison During Aug. 10 to 14 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10 Lawsuits Filed in Madison During Aug. 3 to 7 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kintetsu to Pay JPY49M Compensation for Injury ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Settles Satterfield Family Injury Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taunton Local to Pay GBP2T for Disposal Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: PEER Files Suit on Grand Teton Asbestos Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Indicts 2 Firms for Handling Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Links Swindon Woman's Death to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Derbyshire Groundsman's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Hardie Execs Penalized for Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willis Case v. Georgia-Pacific Settled Aug. 13 ASBESTOS UPDATE: $800T Assessed for Cleanup at Ohio School Bldg. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shiocton Resident Charged for Handling Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corry Family Wins $2Mil in Compensation Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hughes' Widow Wins Lawsuit v. Vernon & Roberts ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Has $3.24B Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 858 Claims in W.Va. at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Records $14.7Mil Net Reserve at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Cites $397M Reserves at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Cites $300T for Settlement Agreement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Units Still Facing Claims in Canada ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Corp. Still Involved in MPERS Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Has $16.79MM Net Reserves at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse, Units Still Facing Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes Dredge, NATCO Facing Injury Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright, Units Still Face Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Reserves $152.3M for A&E at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. Ameren, Units Rise to 75 in June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Company Still Facing Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Named in Product Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10M for Coverage for A&E Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Properties Accrues $900T for Remediation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 70 Lawsuits Ongoing v. Met-Pro Corp. at July 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $159.35M June 30 Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Facing 9,415 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Records $705.4MM Reserves at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Houston Wire Still Pending in 3 States ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Involved in AO Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Still Reserves $277T for Gradall Facility ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Gardner Denver ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Records $2.7MM ARO Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Specialty Subject to Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: M&F Still Incurs No Material Amounts at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Records $46.90M Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Still Has $13.56M Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,257 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nevamar Subject to Workers' Compensation Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prime Group Has $8.1M June 30 Cleanup Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: BMCA Still Subject to Bodily Injury Proceedings ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Holdings Still Subject to Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Subject to Product Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sisson Claim v. 41 Defendants Filed on Aug. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrell Case Filed v. 36 Companies in Jefferson ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doyle's Lawsuit v. 9 Companies Filed on Aug. 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coldfoot to Pay $5,100 Penalty for CAA Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Ariz. Schools to Pay $22T for AHERA Breaches ********* AGILENT TECH: Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Final approval of the global settlement of a securities class action, Kassin v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639 (S.D.N.Y.), is pending, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. In November 2001, the action was filed against certain investment bank underwriters for the company's initial public offering, Agilent and some of its officers and directors at the time of the IPO. In 2003, the Court granted Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims against Agilent based on Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act, but denied Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims based on Section 11 of the Securities Act. On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing a settlement among the plaintiffs, Agilent and more than 200 other issuer defendants and insurers were presented to the Court. Under the proposed settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Agilent and its directors and officers would be released, in exchange for a contingent payment (which, if made, would be paid by Agilent's insurer) and an assignment of certain potential claims. However, class certification of plaintiffs' underlying action against the underwriter defendants was a condition of the settlement. On Dec. 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Court's order certifying such a class in several "test cases" that had been selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs. On Jan. 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the full bench of the Second Circuit. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit issued an order denying rehearing but noted that plaintiffs are free to "seek certification of a more modest class." On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement between plaintiffs and the issuer defendants based on a stipulation among the parties. Plaintiffs have amended their allegations and filed amended complaints in six "test cases" (none of which involve Agilent). Defendants in these cases have moved to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The parties have again reached a global settlement of the litigation and filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on April 2, 2009. Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to Agilent, and Agilent would bear no financial liability. Agilent, as well as the officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the case. On June 9, 2009, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. Agilent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.agilent.com/-- is a measurement company providing bio-analytical and electronic measurement solutions to the communications, electronics, life sciences and chemical analysis industries. The company operates in two business segments: electronic measurement business and the bio-analytical measurement business. AGILENT TECH: Faces Merged Varian Shareholder Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Agilent Technologies, Inc. faces a consolidated amended putative class action complaint, In re Varian, Inc., Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-09-CV-149132, in California. On Aug. 5, 2009, a putative class action was filed in California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, entitled Feivel Gottlieb Plan -- Administrator Feivel Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan DTD 01-01-04 v. Garry W. Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09-CV-149132. The action was allegedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders of Varian, Inc. against Varian, its board of directors, Agilent and Cobalt Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Agilent, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Varian. A similar action, entitled Stuart Kreisberg v. Garry W. Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09-CV-149383, was filed in the same court on Aug. 7, 2009. The actions were subsequently consolidated into In re Varian, Inc., Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-09-CV-149132, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2009. The consolidated amended complaint is also filed on behalf of an alleged class of Varian shareholders against Varian, its directors, Agilent and Cobalt. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Varian's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition and asserts, among other things, that the price and other terms are unfair, that Varian's directors have engaged in self-dealing, and that the disclosures in Varian's Aug. 7, 2009 proxy filing are inadequate. Agilent and Cobalt are alleged to have aided and abetted the Varian directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. On Aug. 19, 2009, another substantially similar putative class action, entitled Hawaii Laborers Pension Fund v. Varian, Inc., et al., No. 1-09-CV-150234, was filed in the same court against Varian, its directors, and Agilent. According to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009, like the consolidated amended complaint, it asserts claims on behalf of a class of Varian shareholders, alleges that Varian's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition by, inter alia, failing to value Varian properly, agreeing to improper deal terms, engaging in self-dealing and making misleading disclosures, alleges that Agilent aided and abetted those purported breaches of fiduciary duties, and seeks injunctive and other relief (including attorneys' fees and costs). Agilent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.agilent.com/-- is a measurement company providing bio-analytical and electronic measurement solutions to the communications, electronics, life sciences and chemical analysis industries. The company operates in two business segments: electronic measurement business and the bio-analytical measurement business. AMTRUST BANK: Borrowers Sue To Recover $350 Table Funding Fee ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that AmTrust Bank charges $350 for a "table funding fee" at real estate closings, though it offers no valid service for it, a class action lawsuit claims. A copy of the Complaint in Devito v. AmTrust Bank, Case No. 09-cv-03858 (E.D.N.Y.) (Cogan, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/HomeMortsCA.pdf The plaintiffs are represented by: Oren Giskan, Esq. Catherine Anderson, Esq. GINSJAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP 11 Broadway, Suite 2150 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-847-8315 BERNARD L. MADOFF: Law Student Settles with Madoff's Brother ------------------------------------------------------------ Vesselin Mitev at the New York Law Journal reports that a Long Island, N.Y., law student who sued the brother of Bernard Madoff for depleting his trust fund in a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme has settled for less than his original claim, according to his attorney. Andrew Samuels of Dix Hills, N.Y., sued Peter Madoff for depleting his $475,000 trust fund by paying out "fictitious returns" to other investors in the scam. The fund was started by Mr. Samuels' grandfather and his wife, Ruth. Peter Madoff had moved to dismiss the case, arguing he owed no fiduciary duty to the second-year Brooklyn Law School student. In March, Nassau Supreme Court Justice Stephen A. Bucaria ordered a temporary freeze on Peter Madoff's assets but modified the order in April, after the parties had stipulated to allowing him a $10,000 monthly budget for "necessary" expenses with the provision he set aside enough money to pay off Samuels' claim if the matter got to trial. After several hearings were adjourned, Samuels v. Madoff, Index No. 09-05534, was discontinued at the end of July. Steven Schlesinger, Esq., of Jaspan Schlesinger, who represented Mr. Samuels, declined to provide a specific amount, but told Mr. Mitev that the settlement was for less than the $475,000 sought. Irving H. Picard, the trustee charged with liquidating Bernard Madoff's assets, had tried to stake a claim to any funds recovered, Mr. Mitev adds. Mr. Picard declined Mr. Mitev's request for comment on whether he planned to go after the settlement money. Charles Spada, Esq., one of Madoff's attorneys, did not respond to Mr. Mitev's request for comment either. Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty to defrauding investors in July and was sentenced to 150 years in prison. For more coverage of the Bernard Madoff case, see the Law.com Madoff Watch page at http://www.law.com/jsp/law/madoff.jsp For continuous updates, follow Law.com's Madoff Watch on Twitter at http://twitter.com/Madoff_Watch BEST BUY: Sued For Refusing To Sell TV at Misprinted Sale Price --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Best Buy refused to honor a sale price of $9.99 for a 52-inch TV which it advertised on its Web site on Aug. 12, a class action claims in Monmouth County Court, N.J. A copy of the Complaint in Vitarelle v. Best Buy Inc., Docket No. L-4026-09 (N.J. Super. Ct, Monmouth Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/CCABestBuy.pdf Michael Vitarelle, the named plaintiff, is represented by: Jonathan Rudnick, Esq. CARTON & RUDNICK 262 Highway 35 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 842-2070 BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Sued for Cheating Policyholders in D. Ariz. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that BlueCross BlueShield of Arizona cheats policyholders who use out-of-network services, a class action claims in Phoenix Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Traslavina-Pena v. BlueCross BlueShield of Arizona, Case No. 09-cv-01857 (D. Ariz.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/InsureBlue.pdf The plaintiff is represented by: Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP 7702 E. Doubletree Ranch Road, Suite 300 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 607-4368 Fax: (480) 607-4366 E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Mark T. Johnson, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 - and - Gregory Y. Porter BAILEY & GLASSER 910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 543-0226 - and - Edwin R. Lamberth, Esq. CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS LLC 1601 Dauphin Street Mobile, AL 36604 Telephone: (251) 471-6191 - and - Mark A. Chavez, Esq. Jonathan E. Gertler, Esq. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 381-5599 CASELLA WASTE: BMR Discriminatory Practices Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Casella Waste Systems, Inc. and Blue Mountain Recycling, LLC continue to defend a class-action lawsuit over discriminatory hiring practices. In November 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania against BMR and the company, alleging discriminatory hiring practices at BMR's facility in Philadelphia. A companion complaint was filed in February 2009, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. BMR and the company deny all allegations, according to its Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. Casella Waste Systems, Inc. -- http://www.casella.com/-- is a vertically integrated company. The company operates in 15 states. It operates vertically integrated solid waste operations in Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, and Maine, and materials processing facilities in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin. CHILDREN'S PLACE: Oct. 16 Final Hearing Set for Stockholder Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The final settlement hearing in the consolidated amended class action complaint against The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., is scheduled for Oct. 16, 2009. On Sept. 21, 2007 a stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its current and former senior executives. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the company's current and former officers made statements to the investing public which misrepresented material facts about the business and operations of the company, or omitted to state material facts required in order for the statements made by them not to be misleading, causing the price of the company's stock to be artificially inflated in violation of provisions of the Exchange Act, as amended. It alleges that subsequent disclosures establish the misleading nature of these earlier disclosures. The complaint seeks monetary damages plus interest as well as costs and disbursements of the lawsuit. On Oct. 10, 2007, a third stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, against the company and certain of the company's current and former senior executives. This complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our current and former officers made statements to the investing public which misrepresented material facts about the business and operations of the company, or omitted to state material facts required in order for the statements made by them not to be misleading, thereby causing the price of the company's stock to be artificially inflated in violation of provisions of the Exchange Act, as amended. According to this complaint, subsequent disclosures establish the misleading nature of these earlier disclosures. This complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages plus interest, and costs and expenses of the lawsuit, including counsel and expert fees. These two actions have been consolidated and the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on Feb. 28, 2008. The company's motion to dismiss was denied on July 18, 2008. On June 26, 2009, the company and all other parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement to settle the action in the amount of $12 million, which settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on July 17, 2009. The cost of the settlement is covered by the company's insurance, according to its Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. -- http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of children's apparel and accessories, ages newborn to 14 years old. The company designs, contracts to manufacture and sells merchandise under the The Children's Place brand name. The company offers current fashion trends in a color palette as coordinated outfits specifically designed for children. CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement of "Fong" Calif. Labor Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative settlement on a putative class action suit by Joy Fong against The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., is pending. On July 12, 2006, Ms. Fong, a former Disney Store manager in the San Francisco district, filed a lawsuit against the company and its subsidiary Hoop Retail Stores, LLC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code and sought class action certification on behalf of Ms. Fong and other individuals similarly situated. The company filed its answer on Aug. 11, 2006, denying any and all liability, and on Jan. 14, 2007, Ms. Fong filed an amended complaint, adding Disney as a defendant. Effective as of March 26, 2008, the prosecution of this lawsuit against Hoop was stayed under the automatic stay provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by reason of Hoop's petition for relief filed that same day. The case is proceeding against the other defendants. On Dec. 18, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification on the misclassification claim. The company has reached a tentative settlement in the amount of $0.6 million and the parties are negotiating the terms of the settlement agreement. The cost of this settlement was accrued as part of the company's accounting for discontinued operations, according to its Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. -- http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of children's apparel and accessories, ages newborn to 14 years old. The company designs, contracts to manufacture and sells merchandise under the The Children's Place brand name. The company offers current fashion trends in a color palette as coordinated outfits specifically designed for children. H&R BLOCK: Defending Remanded Refund Anticipation Loan Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. continues to defend a remanded putative class action regarding the company's refund anticipation loan programs. The sole remaining case is a putative class action entitled Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, 1st J. Dist., Phila. Cty.), instituted on April 23, 1993. The court decertified the class in December 2003, and the Pennsylvania appellate court subsequently reversed the trial court's decertification decision. In September 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decertification decision. In June 2007, the appellate court affirmed its earlier decision to reverse the trial court's decertification decision. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted the company's request to review the appellate court ruling. In June 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court again reversed the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decertification decision and remanded the case to the appellate court for additional review, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. H&R BLOCK: Appeal to Junked Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of In re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-0236-CV-W-ODS (W.D. Mo.), remains pending. On April 6, 2007, a putative class action styled, "In re H&R Block Securities Litigation," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company and certain of its officers. The complaint alleged, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading financial statements, failure to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and concealment of the potential for lawsuits stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the company's operations. It sought unspecified damages and equitable relief. On Oct. 5, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to re-file the portion of the complaint pertaining to the Company's financial statements. On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed the complaint, alleging, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading financial statements and failure to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. At the defendant's behest, the court dismissed the re-filed complaint on Feb. 19, 2008. On March 11, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. No updates on the matter were reported in the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. Representing the plaintiffs are: Charles F. Speer, Esq. Speer Law Firm 104 West 9th Street, Suite 305 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: 816-472-3560 Fax: 816-421-2150 E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com Representing the defendants are: Sameer Advani, Esq. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 7thAvenue New York, NY 10019-6099 Phone: 212-728-8000 Fax: 212-728-8111 E-mail: sadvani@willkie.com - and - Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-320-4858 Fax: 650-565-5100 E-mail: jbirn@wsgr.com H&R BLOCK: SCC Still Faces Suits Over Pre-Termination Activities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sand Canyon Corporation remains subject to class action lawsuits pertaining to its loan origination and servicing activities that occurred prior to its termination and sale, according to H&R Block, Inc.'s Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. H&R Block, Inc.'s subsidiary, SCC, was formerly known as Option One Mortgage Corporation. Although mortgage loan origination activities were terminated and the loan servicing business was sold during fiscal year 2008, SCC remains subject to investigations, claims and lawsuits pertaining to its loan origination and servicing activities that occurred prior to such termination and sale. These investigations, claims and lawsuits include actions by state attorneys general, other state regulators, municipalities, individual plaintiffs, and cases in which plaintiffs seek to represent a class of others alleged to be similarly situated. Among other things, these investigations, claims and lawsuits allege discriminatory or unfair and deceptive loan origination and servicing practices, public nuisance, fraud, and violations of the Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act. In the current non-prime mortgage environment, the number of these investigations, claims and lawsuits has increased over historical experience and is likely to continue at increased levels. The amounts claimed in these investigations, claims and lawsuits are substantial in some instances, and the ultimate resulting liability is difficult to predict. In the event of unfavorable outcomes, the amounts SCC may be required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements could be substantial and, because SCC's operating results are included in the company's consolidated financial statements, could have a material adverse impact on H&R's consolidated results of operations. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. H&R BLOCK: Unit Appeals "Do Right's Plant Growers" Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal by RSM EquiCo, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc., from the class certification in a lawsuit regarding its business valuation services. The suit is Do Right's Plant Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., RSM McGladrey, Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 06 CC00137 (Calif. Super, Ct., Orange Cty.), filed on July 11, 2006. The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks unspecified damages, restitution and equitable relief. On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on all claims. The class consists of all RSM EquiCo U.S. clients who signed platform agreements and for whom RSM EquiCo did not ultimately market their business for sale. RSM EquiCo has filed an appeal of this certification ruling and intends to defend this case, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. H&R BLOCK: Lawsuits v. Unit Over Peace of Mind Program Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., a unit of H&R Block, Inc., continues to face purported class actions in Illinois and Texas in relation to the its Peace of Mind Program, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. Illinois Litigation One of the cases is the purported class action, Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action 2003L000004 (Ill. Cir. Ct, Madison Cty.). The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002 and granted class-action status on Aug. 27, 2003. The plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating to the POM Program under which the applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return preparation error. The plaintiffs allege that the sale of the Peace of Mind Program guarantees constitutes: -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license; -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming" (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though they did not request it or want it); and -- a breach of fiduciary duty. In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes consisting of all persons who from Jan. 1, 1997 to final judgment: -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member; -- reside in certain class states and were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member. Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded from the plaintiff class. The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product. The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to certify class certification issues for interlocutory appeal. Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been set (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 14, 2008). On Aug. 5, 2008, the court decertified the defendant class and reduced the geographic scope of the plaintiff classes from 48 states to 13 states. On Aug. 19, 2008, the company removed the case from state court in Madison County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In December 2008, the U.S. District Court remanded the case back to state court. On April 3, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision to remand the case back to state court, ruling that the case had been properly removed to federal court. The plaintiffs have filed a petition for rehearing of this decision with the Seventh Circuit, which was denied in August 2009. Texas Litigation There is one other putative class-action lawsuit pending against the company in Texas that involves the POM guarantee. This case involves the same plaintiffs' attorneys that are involved in the Marshall litigation, and contains similar allegations. No class has been certified in this case. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. IPO LITIGATION: $195 Million Fee Request Draws Fire --------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett at the New York Law Journal reports that objections have been filed to the $195 million fee request by plaintiffs attorneys who achieved a $586 million settlement in a massive federal initial public offering litigation. In papers filed Tuesday by counsel for objectors, four attorneys argue the request for $195 million was "outrageous" and "a fee of 33.33 percent is not permissible in a mega-fund case like this." Southern District of New York Judge Shira A. Scheindlin is scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday to give final approval to the settlement and pass judgment on the fee request by Bernstein Liebhard, Milberg LLP and other plaintiffs firms. The objectors, led by attorney Edward F. Siegel, Esq., of Cleveland, also argue in their papers in In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, MC-21-92 (S.D.N.Y.), against $50 million in expenses sought by the plaintiffs firms, stating, "Whether the class should reward its counsel for flying first class and staying at 5-star hotels is a question. Whether the class should pay for the maintenance of the modern equivalent of each firm's electronic law library (electronic research charges) is another." Howard Sirota, Esq., of the plaintiffs firm Sirota & Sirota said of Siegel and the other objecting attorneys, "Their contribution is zero -- they are shakedown artists." Mr. Siegel said he "obviously disagreed" with Mr. Sirota's opinion. "We are working for the best interests of the class to make sure they get as much of the gross settlement fund as they can," Mr. Siegel told Mr. Hamblett. The hearing is set for 4:30 p.m. Thursday. NETAPP INC: Motion to Dismiss Shareholders Suit Pending in Del. --------------------------------------------------------------- Motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the shareholders of Data Domain, Inc. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is pending, according to NetApp, Inc.'s Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. The lawsuit, filed on June 12, 2009, names as defendants the Data Domain directors, and NetApp and its merger subs, and alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Data Domain board of directors and aiding and abetting such breach by NetApp. The complaint initially sought injunctive relief and damages. On Aug. 26, 2009, plaintiff in the Delaware Suit moved to dismiss its action and requested attorneys' fees and expenses based on the benefit allegedly conferred by plaintiff's lawsuit upon Data Domain's shareholders. According to the company's Form 10-Q dated Sept. 4, 2009, it believes any claims against NetApp or its merger subs, and any request for attorneys' fees or expenses from NetApp or its merger subs, are without merit. NetApp, Inc. -- http://www.netapp.com/-- is a provider of storage and data management solutions. The company offers solutions for storing, managing, protecting and archiving business data. The company is engaged in the design, manufacturing, marketing and technical support of networked storage solutions. It offers storage solutions that incorporate its unified storage platform and the functionality of the data and storage resource management software. NetApp markets its products in the United States and in foreign countries through its sales personnel and subsidiaries. NETAPP INC: Data Domain's Shareholders Suit Pending in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- An amended purported class action complaint on behalf of Data Domain, Inc.'s shareholders is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, according to NetApp, Inc.'s Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. The lawsuit, which was filed on June 19, 2009, names as defendants the Data Domain, its directors, and NetApp and its merger subs, and alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Data Domain board of directors and aiding and abetting such breach by NetApp. The complaint initially sought injunctive relief and damages. On July 23, 2009, plaintiff in the California Suit purported to serve an amended complaint alleging a single claim for attorneys' fees and expenses based on the benefit allegedly conferred by plaintiff's lawsuit upon Data Domain's shareholders. According to the company's Form 10-Q dated Sept. 4, 2009, it believes any claims against NetApp or its merger subs, and any request for attorneys' fees or expenses from NetApp or its merger subs, are without merit. NetApp, Inc. -- http://www.netapp.com/-- is a provider of storage and data management solutions. The company offers solutions for storing, managing, protecting and archiving business data. The company is engaged in the design, manufacturing, marketing and technical support of networked storage solutions. It offers storage solutions that incorporate its unified storage platform and the functionality of the data and storage resource management software. NetApp markets its products in the United States and in foreign countries through its sales personnel and subsidiaries. REGIONS BANK: Sued for Unfairly Maximizing Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Regions Bank juggles accounts to extract maximum, and unfair, "overdraft" fees, a class action claims in Lufkin, Texas, Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Spikes, et al. v. Regions Bank, Case No. 09-cv-00146 (E.D. Tex.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/BanksRegions.pdf The five named plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce Steckler, Esq. Russell Budd, Esq. S. Ann Saucer, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Fax: (214) 520-1181 TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers ------------------------------------------------------------- Toys "R" Us' Inc. intends to defend a consolidated class action case brought by internet retailers, according to its Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009. On July 15, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the class plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consumer class action commenced in January 2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by two internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005. Both actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby product manufacturers to impose, maintain and/or enforce minimum price agreements with retailers in violation of antitrust laws. On July 29, 2009, Defendants filed a petition with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to immediately appeal the District Court's class certification order. Toys "R" Us' Inc. -- http://www.toysrus.com/-- is one of the world's largest toy retailers. Toys "R" Us sells its wares in about 1,500 stores in the US and abroad and through Web sites. In addition to about 585 US namesake stores selling toys, games, and other items for kids, Toys "R" Us sells infant and toddler apparel, furniture, and feeding supplies at some 260 Babies "R" Us stores in more than 40 states. It's owned by KKR, Bain Capital, and real estate firm Vornado Realty Trust, which together took the toy seller private in a $6.6 billion deal. Toys "R" Us acquired troubled toy icon FAO Schwarz in 2009. UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- UTi Worldwide Inc. and several other global logistics providers continue to face a purported class-action suit that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging antitrust violations, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption, "Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd." It alleges that the defendants engaged in various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter Jan. 14, 2008). Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are: -- Panalpina, Inc.; -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG; -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.; -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.; -- EGL, Inc.; -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP; -- Deutsche Bahn AG; -- Schenker AG; -- Schenker, Inc.; -- Deutsche Post AG; -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.; -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders. Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding Services sold in the United States; (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged; (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy or combination; (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged; (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an artificially high and non-competitive level; (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or combination upon interstate commerce; (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. The plaintiffs pray: -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance with the antitrust laws; -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner: (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering into any other contract, conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose of effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect; and (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the distribution or sale of Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any such products except to the extent necessary in connection with bona fide sale transactions between the parties to such communication; -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre- and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the initial complaint in this action; -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law; and -- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such other, further, and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042 (E.D.N.Y.). Representing the plaintiffs is: Christopher Lovell, Esq. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58 New York, NY 10110 Phone: (212) 608-1900 Fax: (212) 719-4677 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com Representing the defendants are: August C. Venturini, Esq. Venturini & Associates 230 Park Avenue, Suite 545 New York, NY 10169 Phone: 212-826-6800 Fax: 212-949-6162 E-mail: acv@venturini-law.com - and - James Joseph Calder, Esq. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 575 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-940-6460 Fax: 212-940-3871 E-mail: james.calder@kattenlaw.com - and - Breon S. Peace, Esq. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-225-2059 Fax: 212-225-3999 E-mail: bpeace@cgsh.com VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued in S.D. Ohio for Useless Data Service ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon Wireless charges for "data usage" even if customers do not get such a service, and even if their phones are incapable of it, a class action claims in Cincinnati Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Brown v. Verizon Wireless, Case No. 09-cv-654 (S.D. Ohio), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/Verizon.pdf Michael S. Brown, the named plaintiff, is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Theresa L. Groh, Esq. Todd B. Naylor, Esq. MURDOCK GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER & GROH, L.P.A. 35 East Seventh Street, Suite 600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@mgsglaw.com tgroh@mgsglaw.com tnaylor@mgsglaw.com - and - Christian A. Jenkins, Esq. Paul J. Minnillo, Esq. Minnillo & Jenkins, Co., L.P.A. 5712 Observatory Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 723-1600 E-mail: cjenking@minnillojenkins.com pjminnillo@minnillojenkins.com VONAGE HOLDINGS: Seeks Arbitration of Consolidated Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vonage Holdings Corp. seeks arbitration of a consolidated purported consumer fraud class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Initially, the company was named in several purported class action complaints filed in California, New Jersey, Ohio and Washington. The suits allege a wide variety of deficiencies with respect to the company's business practices, marketing disclosures, e-mail marketing and quality issues for both phone and fax service. These cases seek relief under various state consumer protection statutes, federal anti-spam laws, and common law theories. Some of the actions allege that the company failed to adequately disclose terms of service, including how the money-back guarantee and the free month of service operate. Various plaintiffs allege that the disconnect fees are improper and that the company failed to honor promised rebates. In addition, some plaintiffs allege the company falsely represented cost savings for its customers and deceptively describe the nature and quality of our service. Other plaintiffs claim its facsimile service is defective. These various class action suits, on behalf of both nationwide and state classes, pending in New Jersey, Washington and California, are generally alleging that the company: -- delayed and refused to allow consumers to cancel their company service; -- failed to disclose procedural impediments to cancellation; -- failed to adequately disclose that their 30-day money back guarantee does not give consumers 30 days to try out the company's services; -- suppressed and concealed the true nature of its services and disseminated false advertising about the quality, nature and terms of the company's services; -- imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and -- invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of Service to the detriment of customers. On May 11, 2007, the plaintiffs in one action petitioned the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for transfer and consolidation of the pending actions to a single court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The motion was heard on July 26, 2007, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the MDL Panel, in an order dated Aug. 15, 2007, transferred the pending actions to the U.S. Court for the District of New Jersey, where they were consolidated under the caption In re Vonage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1862, Master Docket No. 07-CV-3906 (D. N.J.). On Oct. 1, 2007, the counsel for one group of plaintiffs asked the court for appointment of co-lead counsel of the actions, and requested time to file an amended consolidated complaint. On Nov. 6, 2008, the Court entered an Order Granting Consolidation and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel, and ordered that a consolidated Complaint be filed within 45 days, which Complaint was filed on Dec. 19, 2008. On Feb. 6, 2009, the company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. Oral argument on the motion was scheduled for Sept. 1, 2009, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber lines as of Dec. 31, 2006. Utilizing its voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost communications services. WALGREEN CO: Sued for Discrimination After Firing Black Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that eight former workers say Walgreen discriminates against black people by firing them, in a class action in E. St. Louis Federal Court. A copy of the Complaints in Boatwright v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 09-cv-00700 (S.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/EmployWalgreen.pdf The eight former Walgreen employees are represented by: Tiffany B. Klosener, Esq. Amy L. Coopman, Esq. W. James Foland, Esq. FOLAND, WICKENS, EISFELDER, ROPER & HOFER, P.C. 911 Main Street, 30th Floor Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 472-7474 E-mail: tklosener@fwpclaw.com acoopman@fwpclaw.com jfoland@fwpclaw.com - and - Kent Spriggs, Esq. SPRIGGS LAW FIRM 324 West College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 224-8700 E-mail: kspriggs@spriggslawfirm.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jones Case Filed in Jefferson County on Aug. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit against 23 defendant corporations and brought on behalf of Donald G. Jones was filed on Aug. 28, 2009 in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. According to the suit, Mr. Jones worked as an operator from 1957 until 1990. He died on Jan. 21, 2008, from lung cancer. Plaintiffs named in the suit are Mr. Jones' wife, Beatrice Jones, and his daughters Diana Hathorn, Donna Jones and Debra Jones Kovar. Defendants include: Able Supply LLC, Ameripol Synpol, AMF, Babcock and Wilcox Power, Goodrich Corporation, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company (f/k/a Gulf Oil Corporation), Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Erie Power Technologies, Guard Line, and Gulf Oil Corporation. Defendants also include: Henry Vogt Machine Company, Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Michelin North America, Mid Valley Construction Company, Riley Power Inc., Texaco Inc., Texaco Refining and Marketing, Triplex, and Zurn Industries, LLC. The plaintiffs claim the defendants did not provide Mr. Jones with information on appropriate apparel to wear around the products, according to the suit. They say the defendant companies were negligent by failing to timely warn Mr. Jones bout the dangers of asbestos. In the suit, the plaintiffs state the companies also negligently failed to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of the asbestos-containing products. According to the suit, Mr. Jones was unaware of the hazards and defects in the asbestos-containing products. The plaintiffs seek unspecified general, special, punitive and exemplary damages, plus costs, interest and for other relief the Court deems appropriate. Tina H. Bradley, Esq., of Hobson and Bradley in Beaumont, Tex., and Paul D. Henderson, Esq., of Orange, Tex., represent the Jones family. Case No. E184-803 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harper Case v. 18 Companies Filed in Jefferson ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit by Gilbert L. Harper and his wife, Bonita L. Harper, against 18 defendant corporations was filed on Aug. 25, 2009 in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. Defendants include: A.O. Smith Corporation, A.W. Chesterton Company, Babcock Borsig Power, CBS Corporation, Certainteed Corporation, Cleaver Brooks Inc., Crane Co., Crown Cork and Seal Company, General Refractors Company, Garlock, Georgia-Pacific LLC, Goulds Pumps, Ingersoll-Rand plc, Kelly Moore Paint Co., Pneumo Abex Corporation, Sepco Corp. and Zurn Industries, Llc. Mr. Harper Gilbert L. Harper worked as a painter, plumber, carpenter, fire investigator and in heating and air conditioning, where he says he was exposed to asbestos-containing products. This is the second asbestos lawsuit filed by the Harpers against the companies. In their August 2009 lawsuit, the Harpers claim a different asbestos-related injury than in their prior complaint. The couple claims the defendants failed to test the asbestos- containing products before they were introduced into the stream of commerce, according to the lawsuit. They say the defendant companies were negligent by failing to timely warn Mr. Harper about the dangers of asbestos. The suit says that the companies also negligently continued to manufacture the products around which Mr. Harper worked, even after they were aware of the asbestos danger. In the lawsuit, the Harpers seek unspecified actual and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and for other relief the Court deems appropriate. Bryan O. Blevins, Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., represent the Harpers. Case No. E184-778 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9 Actions Filed in Madison During Aug. 10 to 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- During the week of Aug 10, 2009 through Aug. 14, 2009, a total of nine new asbestos suits were filed in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. These cases are: -- (Case No. 09-L-833) Mary Balthasar of Iowa (a bookkeeper and office manager) claims mesothelioma. She was also exposed to asbestos through her family members, who performed home remodeling projects and worked on cars. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and Andrew J. Balcer, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Balthasar. -- (Case No. 09-L-832) Rowland Deems of Nebraska, an electrician at Union Pacific Railroad, a member of the U.S. Navy and an outside salesman for Omaha Compound, claims mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Deems. -- (Case No. 09-L-831) Charles and Mary Sue Denning of Louisiana claim Mr. Denning developed mesothelioma after his work as a member of the U.S. Navy and as a research scientist at Behr Laboratories. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., represent the Dennings. -- (Case No. 09-L-837) Donald and Margaret Hybels of Michigan claim Mr. Hybels developed mesothelioma after serving in the U.S. Army. Mr. Hybels also began working as an electrician and worked at Muskegan Electric, Moore Electrical Service, Rowen and Blair Electric Company and Hybels Electric Service. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Hybels. -- (Case No. 09-L-834) Mary and Stephen Monasmith of Arizona claim Mrs. Monasmith developed mesothelioma after her work as an office manager. Mrs. Monasmith was also secondarily exposed to asbestos fibers through her family members. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., represent the Monasmiths. -- (Case No. 09-L-828) J.C. Morrow of Oklahoma, a laborer, insurance salesman and compositer at various locations throughout Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, California, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii, claims mesothelioma. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Morrow. -- (Case No. 09-L-835) Julie Rockingham of Illinois claims Addist Rockingham died after developing mesothelioma. Mr. Rockingham was exposed to asbestos after his work as a steelworker for more than 30 years and as a member of the Army. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Rockingham. -- (Case No. 09-L-830) Tawny and Keith Stetzel claim Mrs. Stetzel developed mesothelioma after her work as a medical lab technician. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., represent the Stetzels. -- (Case No. 09-L-836) Ronald E. Wilson and Alice Malone-Wilson of Arizona claim Mr. Wilson developed colon cancer after serving in the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy. Mr. Wilson was also a merchant seaman. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Wilsons. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10 Lawsuits Filed in Madison During Aug. 3 to 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- During the week of Aug. 3, 2009 through Aug. 7, 2009, a total of 10 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. These cases are: -- (Case No. 09-L826) David DeSante of Rhode Island claims his deceased mother, Anna DeSante, developed mesothelioma after her job as a factory worker for Westminster Jewelry, Cable Electric, Coro Jewelry, Spiedel, Monet Jewelry, O'Connell and Carpenter and Imperial Knife. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. DeSante. -- (Case No. 09-L-825) Mary Eades of Texas claims her deceased son, Charles Gaffey, died after he developed mesothelioma after his work as a porter at Litsinger Motors and after helping his uncle remodel his home. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Eades. -- (Case No. 09-L-820) Robert Gragg, who worked at Bakers Quarry, as an apprentice carpenter at DuPont, as a petty officer in the U.S. Navy, served aboard the U.S.S. Stribling DD and the U.S.S. Dyers DDS, at Dean White Construction cleaning up hoses after fires and general labor, for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company as a factory worker and general janitorial worker, claims mesothelioma. James F. Kelly, Esq., and Jeffrey A.J. Millar, Esq., of Brent Coon and Associates in St. Louis represent Mr. Gragg. -- (Case No. 09-L-819) Teresa M. Lawlor of Florida claims Clara L. Fisk died after developing mesothelioma from her work in maintenance for bowling alleys and Goodwill stores. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Alton, Ill., will be representing Ms. Lawlor. -- (Case No. 09-L-823) Hollis and Paula Lee of Indiana claim Mr. Lee developed mesothelioma after his work as a mechanic and painter. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., represent the Lees. -- (Case No. 09-L-802) Richard Lemire of Texas claims Albert Lemire died after developing mesothelioma from his work as a laborer and store clerk while in the United States Navy. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Alton, Ill., represent Richard Lemire. -- (Case No. 09-L-818) Elizabeth S. Love of Massachusetts claims Helen F. Shelley died after developing mesothelioma from her work as a school teacher. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Love. -- (Case No. 09-L-822) Hubert L. and Sharon Paul of Alabama claim Mr. Paul developed mesothelioma after his work as a machinist helper for Mobile Ship Repair, as an employee for Alabama States Docks, as an employee for International Paper Company, as a firefighter, as a member of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force and as a firefighter. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Pauls. -- (Case No. 09-L-824) Stanley Stevens of Indiana claims his deceased wife, Sarah Stevens, died after developing mesothelioma after her work as a dental assistant and x-ray technician. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., Paul M. Dix, Esq., and Courtney Harashe Gregory, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Stevens. -- (Case No. 09-L-821) Gary D. Trommell, an employee at Dairy Queen and the Miller Plant Farm Nursery, an employee at the Kelsey Hayes Company, a mobile home brake manufacturer on the assembly line and a teacher, coach, athletic director and principal, claims peritoneal mesothelioma. James F. Kelly, Esq., and Jeffrey A.J. Millar, Esq., of Brent Coon and Associates in St. Louis will represent Mr. Trommell. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kintetsu to Pay JPY49M Compensation for Injury ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Yumiko Tokuoka order Kintetsu Corporation to pay JPY49 million in compensation to an unnamed man whose family claimed he died from inhaling asbestos in a building owned by the Company, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports. The Company is an Osaka, Japan-based railway operator. According to the lawyers representing the family, the ruling given on Aug. 31, 2009 at the Osaka District Court was the first ever to find a building owner at fault over health problems caused by asbestos. The family claimed in the suit that the man operated a stationery shop under an elevated railway track of the Company in Osaka Prefecture. The man suffered mesothelioma because he inhaled asbestos powder flaking from the shop's walls, leading to his death in 2004 at the age of 70. The family had demanded JPY 73 million in compensation. Judge Tokuoka said the Company had failed to take proper measures, although the vibrations from trains passing over the shop could have caused asbestos particles to shake loose into the air. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Settles Satterfield Family Injury Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Satterfield's family and Alcoa Inc. settled for an undisclosed amount an asbestos-related exposure and cancer lawsuit, The Daily Times reports. The case was filed in 2003 by Ms. Satterfield when she was 23 years old following her diagnosis with mesothelioma. Greg Coleman, Esq., who represents the Satterfield family, said, "A confidential financial settlement was obtained." On Sept. 2, 2009, Christy Newman, the Alcoa Tennessee Operations spokeswoman, said, "We can confirm that the parties have agreed to settle the case in a confidential agreement. We are pleased that the lawsuit is concluded and both parties can move forward." Ms. Satterfield died on Jan. 1, 2005, at age 25, and her parents, Doug and Donna Satterfield, continued the lawsuit. Mr. Satterfield was employed by Alcoa Tennessee Operations starting in 1973. He hauled asbestos for the Company. In September 2008, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in favor of the family who maintained Ms. Satterfield's cancer was caused by hazardous substances at her father's workplace that were transferred to his daughter. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taunton Local to Pay GBP2T for Disposal Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael James, a developer, was ordered to pay GBP2,332 in fines and costs after the Environment Agency charged him for illegal waste disposal, edie reports. The incident occurred last summer. Mr. James, of Taunton, Somerset, England, allegedly buried asbestos and rubble at a Somerset farm. Taunton magistrates heard how during conversion of farm buildings, Mr. James had built up over 250 tons of construction and demolition waste. This was made up of concrete slabs and blocks, fiber cement cladding material, and asbestos. Rather than properly dispose of the waste, Mr. James hired a contractor to dig a pit and bury it at the farm. Michael Dyer for the Environment Agency said, "If the defendant had taken the trouble to segregate the concrete rubble from the hazardous waste it would have only cost around GBP1,000 to legitimately dispose of the relatively small amount of asbestos. "Mixing and burying the various wastes has created a much larger potential clean-up bill." ASBESTOS UPDATE: PEER Files Suit on Grand Teton Asbestos Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to a complaint filed on Aug. 26, 2009 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should investigate serious asbestos-related violations by Grand Teton National Park managers, according to a PEER press release dated Aug. 26, 2009. Ignoring warnings from its staff, the park stored friable asbestos in areas of the park accessible to visitors and then had it illegally shipped in open trucks across state lines for improper disposal. In August 2001, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the park for subjecting the workers who removed 2500 feet of asbestos-coated water pipe to unsafe and unhealthful conditions such as shoveling the asbestos dust which peeled off the pipes without protective equipment. The PEER complaint focuses on what followed the OSHA citation, charging that park managers: -- Heaped the asbestos at local sites without any containment or means to protect park visitors from exposure; -- Dumped some loads onto campsite fire grates that were later distributed throughout the park; and -- Loaded much of the materials into uncovered dump trucks that were driven through Jackson Hole, Wyo., on a 300-mile trip to an open dump at Mud Lake, Idaho, where it remains today. PEER contends that by these actions park officials knowingly violated the Clean Air Act and the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund). Knowing violations can bring fines of up to US$250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years under the Clean Air Act and three years under CERCLA. The organization argues that the clear danger to the public and workers, as well as the fact that the asbestos today still poses a hazard due to improper disposal, merits treating these offenses as crimes. PEER Staff Counsel Christine Erickson, Esq., said, "Grand Teton park managers showed an outrageous disregard for the health of the workers and the public in how they carried out this asbestos removal. National Park officials sometimes forget that environmental laws apply to them as well." PEER further maintains that the asbestos violations are not isolated incidents of problems at Grand Teton, pointing to a 2008 Interior Department Office of Inspector General audit criticized Grand Teton facilities where park employees are subjected to "poor indoor air quality" from vehicle exhaust vented directly into work spaces. PEER had to sue the Inspector General under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the inspection records underlying this report and is looking at other unsafe and unhealthful work conditions at Grand Teton that have yet to be remedied. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Indicts 2 Firms for Handling Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- A court in Tennessee indicted two unnamed demolition and salvage companies along with three of their owners and supervisors on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate the Clean Air Act, The Associated Press reports. The indictment describes a scheme in which the Standard Coosa Thatcher plant in Chattanooga, Tenn., was illegally demolished while containing asbestos that should have been removed first. The indictment also alleges that owners and supervisors falsified documents and lied to federal authorities. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Links Swindon Woman's Death to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of Anita Peters, of Greenmeadow, Swindon, England, was linked to secondary exposure to asbestos, This is Wiltshire.co.uk reports. Mrs. Peters died at Prospect Hospice in Wroughton on April 4, 2009, the inquest in Swindon's Civic Offices in Euclid Street heard on Sept. 1, 2009. The inquest was told the 66-year-old Mrs. Peters suffered from vascular dementia and developed chest problems in 2007, but a confirmed diagnosis was never made. A post mortem by pathologist Lawrence John showed that Mrs. Peters had pleural mesothelioma. Mrs. Peters' husband John said he met his wife when she was 10 years old. He said his wife spent her professional life working in accounts and never came into contact with asbestos through her own work. Mr. Peters said his father-in-law Albert Summers died of mesothelioma in April 2006 after coming into contact with the substance during his time at a railway company as a younger man. Mr. Peters said of his father-in-law, "He was a fitter. They didn't have showers in those days - he would come home in his overalls and they would be dirty, covered in dust." Wiltshire Coroner David Ridley said, "Mr. Peters and a family friend took Anita for a walk around the garden. It was during that walk Anita collapsed and became unresponsive. She was pronounced dead." Recording a narrative verdict, Mr. Ridley said, "Anita, in a balance of probability, was most likely to be involved in asbestos exposure down to her father's contact with asbestos. Anita' death was caused by industrial disease mesothelioma." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Derbyshire Groundsman's Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of Stephen Gillingham, a former groundsman from Derbyshire, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports. Mr. 51-year-old Gillingham suffered from mesothelioma. He had chemotherapy but, in May 2009, he was taken to the former Derby City General Hospital with increasing shortness of breath, and died there on June 16, 2009. Mr. Gillingham worked as the head groundsman at International Combustion in Sinfin Lane, Derby, from 1988 to 1994. Before his death, Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard how Mr. Gillingham planned to file a claim against the company after what he described as several years' exposure to asbestos dust. In a statement compiled as part of his compensation claim, Mr. Gillingham identified several periods when he might have been in contact with the dust. Assistant deputy coroner Michael Bird said it was likely that Mr. Gillingham's mesothelioma was caused by this exposure, adding, "We have good evidence from Mr. Gillingham, in the form of his statement, about what he says he was exposed to. "We have also heard how the vast majority of such cases occur in connection with asbestos exposure, so it is highly likely this was the cause of his death." In his statement, Mr. Gillingham, of Grosvenor Street, Allenton, said he had spent a lot of time in the archives of International Combustion, which was bought by Rolls-Royce in the late 1990s. Consultant pathologist Dr. Andrew Hitchcock, from the Royal Derby Hospital, said that no asbestos fibers had been found in Mr. Gillingham's body and his exposure to asbestos dust could have been light. Mr. Bird recorded a verdict of death as a result of industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Hardie Execs Penalized for Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New South Wales Supreme Court, on Aug. 20, 2009, penalized former executives and directors of James Hardie Industries N.V. for breaching the Corporations Act in 2001 regarding the adequacy of asbestos compensation funding, Bloomberg reports. Hardie was fined AUD80,000 (US$66,467) for breaching its continuous disclosure obligation in 2003, according to the statement from the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. Former Chief Executive Officer Peter Macdonald was fined AUD350,000 and barred from managing a corporation for 15 years, and former company secretary and general counsel Peter Shafron received an AUD75,000 fine and a seven-year ban. Eight other former directors were banned from managing corporations for five years and given fines of either AUD30,000 or AUD35,000. The former James Hardie directors were found in April 2009 to have breached the Corporations Act when making statements in 2001 about the adequacy of asbestos compensation funding. A media release at the time said the trust was "fully funded" and offered "certainty" of compensation for victims. The fund could run out of cash by 2011 if the government does not step in, the Australian Financial Review reported. Hardie has spent US$20.3 million on the case since February 2007, it said in its first-quarter results this week. The defendants will have 28 days from the making of the penalty orders to appeal the punishment, ASIC said. URS Corp. Chief Executive Officer Martin Koffel, who left the Hardie board in 2002, is planning to appeal the decision, according to his legal counsel, said Jane Simmons, an outside spokeswoman for URS. In a statement to the stock exchange, Hardie said it is considering its position regarding an appeal and at this stage does not intend to comment further. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willis Case v. Georgia-Pacific Settled Aug. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to defense law firm HeplerBroom in Edwardsville, Ill., on Aug. 13, 2009, an asbestos trial ended in a defense verdict for Georgia-Pacific LLC in a case filed by William Willis, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. However, a Sangamon County jury also awarded the 69-year-old Mr. Willis, a former Springfield postal worker and part-time handyman, US$2 million against Bondex International, over its asbestos-containing joint compound. Mr. Willis sued in 2007 in Sangamon Circuit Court, claiming he was dying from mesothelioma. He was a full-time postal worker, but claimed that he did odd jobs over a number of years relating to roofing, siding and the use of drywall joint compounds. At trial, Mr. Willis maintained that he used Georgia-Pacific joint compound while doing residential renovations from the mid- 1960s to the early 1980s. Pathologist Mark Wick, M.D. and pulmonologist Gerald Kerby, M.D. testified that Mr. Willis' death was either idiopathic or due to amphibole asbestos exposure for work he had done as a teenager working for his father on boiler tear outs. Industrial hygienist Kim Anderson approximated the minimal exposure Mr. Willis would have had based on his claims of drywall joint compound work. The jury found Bondex alone liable and awarded Mr. Willis US$1.5 million in damages and his wife, Sharon Willis, US$500,000 for loss of consortium. But the jury award is subject to a reduction of US$1.4 million due to prior settlements. The jury found co-defendants CertainTeed Corporation and Georgia- Pacific not to be negligent. Mr. Willis was represented by Davis Law Offices in Springfield, Ill. Georgia-Pacific was represented by Jeff Hebrank, Esq., and Brian Huelsmann, Esq., of HeplerBroom in Edwardsville, Ill., along with Michael Drumke, Esq., of the firm's Chicago office and Steve Kaufmann, Esq., of its Springfield office. ASBESTOS UPDATE: $800T Assessed for Cleanup at Ohio School Bldg. ---------------------------------------------------------------- About US$800,000 (out of US$1 million) is estimated for the removal of asbestos at a school building in Ohio, Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports. The Ohio School Facilities Commission says it will likely cost US$1 million to demolish the aging school building. For the first time in 132 years, students will not be attending the Cortland, Ohio, school that started out as Cortland High School and is now used to house the elementary school. The school board has shut the building, and moved students into other buildings. The school's future is uncertain, but it will likely be put up for sale in an auction be held this fall, according to Robert Wilson, Lakeview district superintendent. By law, the school district had to offer the building for sale first to any private schools in the district. However, there are none. Cortland, Ohio, Mayor Curt Moll estimates that tearing down the building would cost between US$500,000 and US$1 million. MR. Wilson says the number is closer to US$1 million, according to an estimate generated by the Ohio School Facilities Commission. The asbestos present in the building is encapsulated. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shiocton Resident Charged for Handling Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Phillips, a 53-year-old resident of Shiocton, Wis., was indicted on federal charges for breaching regulations for asbestos removal, the Post-Crescent reports. The indictment says Mr. Phillips owned Villa Apartments in New London, Wis., through a corporation. Between July 2007 and November 2007, he removed a large quantity of pipe during a heating system conversion and violated federal Environmental Protection Agency rules for disposal. The indictment said Mr. Phillips did not give the EPA required notice, did not wet down asbestos when it was removed from pipes, handled asbestos carelessly, removed it from the building without packing it in leak-proof wrapping, did not label packages as hazardous and did not have anyone trained in asbestos removal and disposal on premises. Mr. Phillips was indicted on seven counts. Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine, plus a mandatory US$100 special assessment and up to three years of supervised release. The EPA and the state Department of Natural Resources investigated the case. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corry Family Wins $2Mil in Compensation Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Illinois jury awarded the family of Leslie Corry US$2 million for Ms. Corry's secondhand exposure to asbestos and eventual death, Asbestos.com reports. In the 1950s, Ms. Corry's first husband worked at an asbestos and rubber company. During his employment, he was exposed to asbestos on a regular basis, which he unknowingly carried home on his clothes. While washing his clothes, it is believed that Ms. Corry was exposed to asbestos, which has been labeled the cause of her malignant mesothelioma. Although Ms. Corry's secondary exposure occurred during the 1950s, she was not diagnosed with mesothelioma until several decades later due to the severe latency period of symptoms. Secondary exposure has primarily affected women who used to wash their husbands' asbestos-contaminated clothes after work. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hughes' Widow Wins Lawsuit v. Vernon & Roberts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Hughes' widow, Dorothy Hughes, won a seven-year asbestos-related compensation fight against her husband's former employers, Stalybridge, England-based engineering firm Vernon & Roberts, the Manchester Evening News reports. Vernon & Roberts has been forced to pay up to settle the case. Mr. Hughes died of mesothelioma in 2001 after being exposed to asbestos working for the firm in the 1960s. His case was settled for GBP60,000 four years ago. However, since the firm's insurance company had dissolved, Mrs. Hughes had to start a new fight to force someone to honor the decision. Manchester solicitor Pauline Chandler, from Pannone LLP, has now secured a payout from the former directors who got a share of Vernon & Roberts' assets when it shut down. Vernon & Roberts were dismantling engineers and Mr. Hughes came in to contact with asbestos dust as buildings and equipment were demolished and stripped. The firm was insured with the Federated Insurance Company, which has now ceased trading. Solicitors tried to claim from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, but they refused to pay out because the claim was lodged with Vernon & Roberts before it was wound up in 2003. Ms. Chandler had to sue the former directors of Vernon & Roberts for not fulfilling their duties properly. They were then forced to pay the settlement out of their own pockets. Ms. Chandler said, "If a company has employer's liability insurance, the insurers will usually pay out if an employee develops a disease. "In this case, there were assets of GBP250,000 when the claim was made and instead of sharing them out between themselves when the company finally folded, the directors should have paid out Mrs. Hughes' compensation claim." ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Has $3.24B Liability at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense was US$3.242 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$3.541 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2008. The Company's gross asbestos liability for unpaid claims for and claims adjustment expense was US$3.330 billion during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$3.598 billion during the three months ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009) The Company's net asbestos liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense was US$1.152 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$1.288 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2008. The gross IBNR (incurred but not yet reported reserves) included in the liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense, relating to asbestos claims, were US$2.151 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$2.256 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2008. The net IBNR included in the liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense, relating to asbestos claims, were US$978 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$1.114 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2008. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recoded 380 claims opened, 161 claims settled, 514 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved, and 5,485 claims at end of period. During the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company recorded 392 claims opened, 97 claims settled, 551 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved, and 6,307 claims at end of period. New York-based American International Group, Inc. provides property/casualty and specialty insurance to commercial, institutional, and individual customers. Internationally, the Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and retirement services, asset management, and financial services in more than 130 countries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 858 Claims in W.Va. at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Allegheny Energy, Inc., as of June 30, 2009, faced 858 claims alleging exposure to asbestos in West Virginia, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2009. As of June 30, 2009, the Company also faced four claims in Pennsylvania and one in Illinois. The Company's total number of claims alleging exposure to asbestos, as of March 31, 2009, was 865 in West Virginia and three in Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009) Allegheny's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have been named as defendants, along with multiple other defendants, in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the Company. These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Company's generation facilities. Its historical operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London. Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers, and the Company said it believes that it has sufficient insurance to respond fully to the asbestos suits. Certain insurers, however, have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits. The Company is currently involved in three asbestos and environmental insurance-related actions: -- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington County, Md.), -- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.) and -- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS (Suffolk Superior Court, Mass.). The Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company have resolved their dispute and, therefore, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS will be voluntarily dismissed. The parties in the remaining actions seek a declaration of coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental claims. Greensburg, Pa.-based Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated energy business that owns and operates electric generation facilities and delivers electric services to customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. The Company's two business segments are the Delivery and Services segment and the Generation and Marketing segment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Records $14.7Mil Net Reserve at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s net asbestos- and environmental-related reserve for losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$14.7 million at June 30, 2009 and US$13.9 million at Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's net A&E-related reserve for losses and LAE were US$14 million at March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009) The Company's gross A&E-related reserve for losses and LAE were US$17.6 million at June 30, 2009 and US$18.5 million at Dec. 31, 2008. In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and environmental damage liability of US$57.7 million at June 30, 2009 and US$58.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008. These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has terminated its participation. However, the Company continues to be subject to claims related to years in which it was a participant. A significant part of the Company's pool reserves relates to its participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association (ECRA) voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the business has been in runoff. The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied from one percent to six percent during these years. The Company's participation in this pool has resulted in average paid losses of about US$2 million annually over the past 10 years. Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. provides personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, workers' compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance and professional liability coverage. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Cites $397M Reserves at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Financial Group, Inc.'s property and casualty group's asbestos and environmental insurance reserves, at June 30, 2009, were US$397 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$84 million. 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 UPDATE: Sealed Air Cites $300T for Settlement Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation says that settlement agreement and related costs reflected legal and related fees for asbestos-related matters of US$300,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2009 and US$800,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2009. On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in the bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co. to resolve all current and future asbestos-related claims made against the Company and its affiliates in connection with the Cryovac transaction. The Settlement agreement will also resolve the fraudulent transfer claims and successor liability claims, as well as indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and affiliated companies that had been made against the Company in connection with the Cryovac transaction. On Dec. 3, 2002, the Company's Board of Directors approved the agreement in principle. The Company received notice that both of the Committees had approved the agreement in principle as of Dec. 5, 2002. The parties subsequently signed the definitive Settlement agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003 consistent with the terms of the agreement in principle. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Units Still Facing Claims in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Certain of Sealed Air Corporation's subsidiaries in Canada are still parties to asbestos-related litigation filed in various Canadian courts. In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. are also named as defendants. The claim was brought as a putative class proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction. Another proceeding was filed in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding. In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional putative class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. have agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions. In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (Canadian Court), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada, Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly. In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all of the Canadian actions. The Canadian Court has entered an order extending the stay until Oct. 1, 2009. A global settlement of these Canadian actions has been finalized and will be funded entirely by Grace (Canadian Settlement). The Canadian Settlement will become null and void if a confirmation order in the Grace U.S. bankruptcy proceeding is not granted prior to Oct. 31, 2009. The Canadian Court issued an Order on Oct. 17, 2008 approving of the Canadian Settlement, and released its detailed reasons for that order on Oct. 23, 2008. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Corp. Still Involved in MPERS Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation continues to be party to an asbestos- related class action lawsuit involving the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System (MPERS). On Sept. 15, 2003, the case of Senn v. Hickey, et al. (Case No. 03-CV-4372) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). This lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002. The lawsuit named the Company and five current and former officers and directors of the Company as defendants. The Company is required to provide indemnification to the other defendants, and accordingly the Company's counsel is also defending them. On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff Miles Senn's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of his choice of lead counsel. The plaintiff's amended complaint makes a number of allegations against the defendants. The principal allegations are that during the above period the defendants materially misled the investing public, artificially inflated the price of the Company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading statements and violated U.S. GAAP by failing to properly account and accrue for the Company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from past operations of W. R. Grace & Co. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On March 14, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Senn v. Hickey, et al. case for failure to state a claim. On Dec. 19, 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court determined that the complaint failed adequately to allege scienter as to the four individual defendants other than T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with respect to these four individual defendants, but adequately alleged scienter as to Mr. Dunphy and the Company. Mr. Dunphy is a current director of the Company and was formerly Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the Court reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the Company's arguments other than scienter that the Court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal. On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On April 7, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on defendants' reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006, the Court denied the motion on the ground that issues of fact prevent the Court from granting a motion to dismiss based on the Company's arguments other than scienter. On Oct. 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of the Company during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002. On Nov. 22, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification, seeking to withdraw as a class representative and to substitute a new class representative, the MPERS. On March 26, 2007, the Court entered an order permitting Miles Senn to withdraw as lead plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be substituted as lead plaintiff. Consequently, the case is now properly referred to as MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al. On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as lead plaintiff, filed a motion to certify a class of all persons or entities that purchased Sealed Air Corporation securities during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby. On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed their memorandum of law in opposition to MPERS's motion for class certification. On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy also filed a motion for reconsideration or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly require dismissal of MPERS's claims. In an Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2008, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. Subsequently, in an Opinion and Order dated March 14, 2008, the Court denied defendants' motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss the complaint premised on the Supreme Court's decisions in Tellabs and Twombly. On March 27, 2008, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed a petition for leave to appeal the district court's class certification ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On May 14, 2008, the Third Circuit denied the petition. On April 27, 2009 the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiff to settle the MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al. case, subject to documentation and Court approval. The agreement provides for payment of US$20 million, which will be fully funded by the Company's primary and excess insurance carriers. As a result of the settlement in principle, in the first quarter of 2009, the Company recorded a liability in the amount of US$20 million. The Company also recorded a corresponding current asset in the first quarter of 2009 for US$20 million since the claim is fully covered by the Company's insurance carriers. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Has $16.79MM Net Reserves at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group, Inc.'s net loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for its asbestos exposures were US$16,789,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$16,683,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's net loss and LAE reserves for asbestos exposures were US$16,836,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009) The Company's gross loss and LAE reserves for its asbestos exposures were US$21,626,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$21,774,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The reserves for asbestos exposures at June 30, 2009 are for: -- One large settled claim for excess insurance policy limits exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products being paid over several years (two other large settled claims were fully paid in 2007); -- Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of products that contained asbestos; and -- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur over time. Substantially all of our asbestos liability reserves are included in the Company's marine loss reserves. The ceded asbestos paid and unpaid recoverables were US$8 million at June 30, 2009, compared with US$8.9 million at Dec. 31, 2008. Based in New York, The Navigators Group, Inc. is an international insurance holding company focusing on specialty products for niches within the overall property/casualty insurance market. Its largest product line and most long-standing area of specialization is ocean marine insurance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse, Units Still Facing Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec) and certain of its affiliates still face lawsuits filed by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Over the last four years, the overall number of new claims filed has significantly decreased as compared to the previous four-year period. However, the resolution of these new claims, and all previously filed claims, may take a significant period of time. Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC), and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC. Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. Wilmerding, Pa.-based Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation provides technology-based products and services for the global rail industry. Its products are found on U.S. locomotives, freight cars and passenger transit vehicles, as well as in more than 100 countries throughout the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes Dredge, NATCO Facing Injury Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and its former subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership, still face pending asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company or NATCO are named as defendants in 264 lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000. In the second quarter of 2009, one additional lawsuit was filed against the Company. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury, primarily fibrosis or asbestosis, from exposure to asbestos on our vessels. Most of these lawsuits have been filed in the Northern District of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of Michigan. All of the cases filed against the Company prior to 1996 were administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since that time have similarly been administratively transferred to the inactive docket. Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to reinstate the cases at a future date without being barred by the statute of limitations. However, to date, no plaintiffs with claims against the Company have sought reinstatement. Oak Brook, Ill.-based Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation provides dredging services in the United States. In addition, the Company is a dredging contractor with significant international operations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright, Units Still Face Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation and its subsidiaries are still named in a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos. To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case. The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that the Company will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. The Company maintains insurance coverage for these potential liabilities. Parsippany, N.J.-based Curtiss-Wright Corporation designs, manufactures, and overhauls precision components and systems. The Company also provides highly engineered products and services to the aerospace, defense, automotive, shipbuilding, processing, oil, petrochemical, agricultural equipment, railroad, power generation, security, and metalworking industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Reserves $152.3M for A&E at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings, Inc.'s gross loss reserves for asbestos and environmental claims were US$152.3 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$149.5 million as of June 30, 2008. The Company's gross loss reserves for A&E claims were US$162.6 million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$154.1 million as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009) The Company's net loss reserves for A&E claims were US$111.9 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$134.4 million as of June 30, 2008. The Company's net loss reserves for A&E claims were US$122.3 million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$138.5 million as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 30, 2009) Included in losses and loss adjustment expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2009 was US$6.1 million in reserve strengthening for prior accident years for certain A&E claims, coupled with US$1.5 million related to the workers compensation reserve discount. Pembroke, Bermuda-based Argo Group International Holdings, Inc. provides specialty property/casualty insurance and reinsurance products in the United States and Europe. The Company operates seven subsidiaries that focus on three well-defined markets: excess and surplus, industry-specific insurance and international catastrophe reinsurance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. Ameren, Units Rise to 75 in June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related lawsuits against Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries increased to 75 as of June 30, 2009, compared with 69 lawsuits as of March 31, 2009. These subsidiaries are: Union Electric Company, Central Illinois Public Service Company, Ameren Energy Generating Company, Central Illinois Light Company, and Illinois Power Company. The Company and its subsidiaries have been named in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. The total number of defendants named in each case is significant; as many as 192 parties are named in some pending cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases that were pending as of June 30, 2009, the average number of parties were 73. The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs' activities at the Company's present or former electric generating plants. Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company. Most of IP's plants were transferred to a former parent subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of IP. As of June 30, 2009, seven asbestos-related lawsuits were pending against Electric Energy, Inc. The general liability insurance maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims. St. Louis-based Ameren Corporation distributes electricity to 2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost one million customers in Missouri and Illinois through its utility subsidiaries. The Company has a generating capacity of more than 16,500 MW (primarily coal-fired). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chemtura Corporation continues to be subject to litigation, including liability claims related to its current products and asbestos-related claims, concerning premises and historic products of its corporate affiliates and predecessors. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2009. Middlebury, Conn.-based Chemtura Corporation produces chemicals for the automotive, transportation, construction, packaging, agriculture, lubricants, plastics for durable and non-durable goods, industrial rubber and home pool and spa chemicals markets. The Company manufactures and sells more than 3,500 products and formulations in more than 100 countries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Company Still Facing Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is still party in asbestos-related lawsuits in which it is one of numerous defendants, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2009. Headquartered in Manitowoc, Wis., The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is a multi-industry, capital goods manufacturer in two principal markets: Cranes and Related Products and Foodservice Equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Named in Product Liability Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek, Inc. is named, along with multiple other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations the Company previously acquired, but which are no longer owned. During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 31, 2009. With respect to these claims, the Company is either contractually indemnified against liability for asbestos-related claims or believes that it has no liability for those claims. The Company seeks dismissal from these proceedings and has tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers of the companies from which the Company acquired the businesses. Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek, Inc. provides digital power control systems that are used to control motion and power primarily in material handling, elevator, and energy delivery applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10M for Coverage for A&E Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coverage for certain asbestos and environmental claims up to US$10 million per occurrence and up to US$10 million in the aggregate. The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of its properties, including ground water contamination and the presence of asbestos containing materials. In the past, the Company has performed remediation of those environmental matters, and it is not aware of any significant remaining potential liability relating to these environmental matters. The Company may be required in the future to perform testing relating to these matters. Philadelphia-based Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust owns and operates shopping malls and power centers. The Company's portfolio currently consists of a total of 56 properties in 13 states, including 38 shopping malls, 14 strip and power centers and four properties under development. The retail properties have a total of 34.8 million square feet. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Properties Accrues $900T for Remediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of June 30, 2009, accrued about US$900,000 for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or abatement at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties. With respect to asbestos-containing materials present at City National Plaza and Brookhollow, these materials have been removed or abated from certain tenant and common areas of the building structures. The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos-containing materials from various areas of the building structures. Los Angeles-based Thomas Properties Group, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company that owns, acquires, develops and manages primarily office, as well as mixed-use and residential properties on a nationwide basis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 70 Lawsuits Ongoing v. Met-Pro Corp. at July 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Met-Pro Corporation says that, as of July 31, 2009, there were a total of 70 asbestos cases pending against it (with most of the cases pending in New York, Mississippi and North Carolina), as compared with 55 cases that were pending as of Jan. 31, 2009. A total of 61 asbestos cases were pending against the Company as of April 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009) Beginning in 2002, the Company and one of its business units began to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed predominantly in Mississippi on a mass basis by large numbers of plaintiffs against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. The complaints filed against the Company and this business unit has been vague, general and speculative, alleging that the Company, and the business unit, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. More recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company and the business unit have been dismissed from or settled a number of these cases. The sum total of all payments through July 31, 2009 to settle these cases was US$540,000, all of which has been paid by the Company's insurers including legal expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of about US$32,000. For the six-month period ended July 31, 2009, 30 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 13 cases and settled two cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. Harleysville, Pa.-based Met-Pro Corporation manufactures and sells product recovery and pollution control equipment for purification of air and liquids, fluid handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, and filtration and purification products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $159.35M June 30 Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was US$159,357,687 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$187,014,436 as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$180,670,000 as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009) The Company's current asbestos liability was US$32 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$20 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$103,151,356 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$122,175,929 as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$22 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$14 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures metal products. Its forged and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes Buffalo Pumps; Aerofin; and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is based in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Facing 9,415 Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced 9,415 open asbestos claims during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with 9,402 claims during the three months ended March 31, 2009. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company noted 552 claims settled or dismissed. The gross settlement and defense costs were US$14,782,000. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution and another former division of the Company. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers). Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity allocation formulas, for a substantial majority of the pending claims for Asbestos Liability. The claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution of the Company, about 340 as of June 30, 2009, are not included within the Coverage Arrangement. The one claim filed against the former division also is not included within the Coverage Arrangement. The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden Buffalo, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former subsidiary of the Company (Products). The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization on access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than the limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access the policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the Products will erode the coverage under the policies available to the Company and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other historical products of the Company and its subsidiaries covered by the applicable policies. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures metal products. Its forged and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes Buffalo Pumps; Aerofin; and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is based in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Records $705.4MM Reserves at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s gross reserves for asbestos and environmental exposures were US$705.4 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$871 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008. The Company's gross reserves for A&E claims were US$768.8 million during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$901 million during the three months ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009) The Company's net reserves for A&E exposures were US$673.9 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$820.5 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008. The Company's net reserves for A&E claims were US$731.9 million during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$843.2 million during the three months ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009) At June 30, 2009, the gross reserves for A&E losses were comprised of US$138.1 million representing case reserves reported by ceding companies, US$148.1 million representing additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance claims, US$89.5 million representing case reserves established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley, and US$328.8 million representing IBNR (incurred-but- not-reported) reserves. With respect to asbestos only, at June 30, 2009, the Company had gross asbestos loss reserves of US$660.6 million, or 93.8 percent, of total A&E reserves, of which US$501.5 million was for assumed business and US$159.1 million was for direct business. The Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 2.1 years for direct business and 10.2 years for reinsurance business at June 30, 2009. Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group, Ltd. offers specialized underwriting in several areas, including property & casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as well as medical malpractice, directors and officers liability, and professional errors and omissions liability. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Houston Wire Still Pending in 3 States ---------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to face a number of lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable, which may have contained asbestos, caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. The Company maintains general liability insurance that has applied to these claims. To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defenses of these claims have been handled by the applicable insurance companies. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such wire and cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL Corporation's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company said it believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate. Houston Wire & Cable Company distributes specialty wire and cable and related services to the U.S. electrical distribution market. The Company serves its 3,200 customers in over 8,600 individual locations, including virtually all of the top 200 electrical distributors in the U.S. The Company is based in Houston. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Involved in AO Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cabot Corporation continues to be involved in cases, including asbestos-related, in connection with a safety respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical Corporation (AO) in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary. The Company's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of AO respirators that are alleged to have been negligently designed or labeled. As of June 30, 2009, there were about 53,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory products. As of March 31, 2009, there were about 54,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory products. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009) The Company has a reserve to cover its expected share of liability for existing and future respirator liability claims. The book value of the reserve at June 30, 2009 is about US$13 million on a discounted basis (or about US$23 million on an undiscounted basis). Boston-based Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and coatings. The Company also holds its own as a maker of fumed metal oxides like fumed silica and fumed alumina, which are used as anti-caking, thickening, and reinforcing agents in adhesives and coatings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- MYR Group Inc. continues to be subject to asbestos-related exposure claims concerning historic operations of a predecessor affiliate, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2009. The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to these claims and adequate insurance coverage in the event any asbestos- related claim is not resolved in its favor. Rolling Meadows, Ill.-based MYR Group Inc. performs construction services in two business segments: Transmission and Distribution, and Commercial and Industrial. T&D customers include more than 125 electric utilities, cooperatives and municipalities nationwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Still Reserves $277T for Gradall Facility ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$277,000 over a potential asbestos issue at its Gradall facility in New Philadelphia, Ohio, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2009. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had an environmental reserve in the amount of US$1,608,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's facility in Ohio. Three specific remediation projects that were identified prior to the acquisition are in process of remediation with a remaining reserve balance of US$143,000. The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third party company located near the Gradall facility. Certain other assets of the Company contain asbestos that may have to be remediated over time. Seguin, Tex.-based Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures, distributes, and services high quality equipment for right-of-way maintenance and agriculture. The Company's products include tractor-mounted mowing and other vegetation maintenance equipment, street sweepers, excavators, vacuum trucks, snow removal equipment, pothole patchers, agricultural implements and related aftermarket parts and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Gardner Denver ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gardner Denver, Inc., is still named as a defendant in a number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits, in which the plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from multiple sources. Typically, the Company is one of about 25 or more named defendants. In the Company's experience to date, the substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which the Company bears responsibility. Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos litigation lawsuits. However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos- containing components of the Products were enclosed within the subject Products. The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for asbestos lawsuits. The Company also said it believes some of the potential liabilities regarding these lawsuits are covered by indemnity agreements with other parties. Quincy, Ill.-based Gardner Denver, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells compressor products. The Company also makes vacuum and fluid transfer products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Records $2.7MM ARO Liability at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Star Central Corp.'s subsidiary Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.'s asbestos retirement obligation (ARO) liability was US$2.7 million at June 30, 2009 and the corresponding asbestos regulatory asset was US$2.4 million. Central's ARO liability was US$2.6 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and the corresponding asbestos regulatory asset was US$2.5 million. Central, at March 31, 2009, recorded a US$2.7 million asbestos- related ARO liability. (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009) Central recorded an asset retirement obligation for the remediation of asbestos existing on its system. The asbestos existing on Central's system is primarily in building materials and pipe coatings used prior to the Clean Air Act of 1973 that established the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants that regulates the use of asbestos. Under its rate settlement under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) docket RP08-350, Central is recovering about US$300,000 annually in its rates related to those costs. Owensboro, Ky.-based Southern Star Central Corp. is involved in natural gas pipeline operations and development opportunities. The Company owns the development rights for a natural gas pipeline in the Rocky Mountain region, which could be developed in the future. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C Distribution Corporation, a Company subsidiary, still face personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there a few cases that name the Company, there are a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against the Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff was not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with the Company, in August 2006, whereby the Company provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000. Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities, D/C filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07- 12776. The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C with the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008. Prior to the deadline, the Company filed claims that aggregated about US$26.8 million, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to the Company. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of about 700 claimants. Chicago-based Kaanapali Land, LLC's operations are in two business segments: Agriculture and Property. The Agriculture segment grows seed corn and soybeans under contract and leases or provides harvesting rights to a third party on certain lands cultivated in or used for the processing of coffee. The Property segment develops land for sale and negotiates bulk sales of undeveloped land. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Specialty Subject to Liability Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. continues to be involved in asbestos-related product liability lawsuits. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Columbus, Ohio-based Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. produces thermosetting resins, or thermosets. Thermosets are an ingredient for paints, coatings, glues and other adhesives produced for consumer or industrial uses. ASBESTOS UPDATE: M&F Still Incurs No Material Amounts at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- M & F Worldwide Corp., as of June 30, 2009, has not incurred and does not expect to incur material amounts related to asbestos- related claims not subject certain arrangements (Remaining Claims). The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC (together with its predecessors in interest, "Pneumo Abex"). Substantially all of these contingent claims are the financial responsibility of third parties and include various environmental and asbestos-related claims. As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and does not expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts related to these matters. In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (Original Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses, all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Prior to the 1988 sale, those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos-containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along with 10 to as many as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant in various personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to asbestos. Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter. In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the "Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor. Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the Division's assets and liabilities in its financial statements. In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement. The Transfer Agreement requires MCGI to undertake certain administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities, including environmental claims that Pneumo Abex did not transfer. Pneumo Abex will be obligated to reimburse the amounts so funded when it receives amounts under related indemnification and insurance agreements. Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability insurance covering substantially all of the period during which it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this coverage. As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original Indemnitor and funding payments under the Transfer Agreement, all of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related claims are managed and paid by others. New York-based M & F Worldwide Corp. is a holding company that conducts its operations through its indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Harland Clarke Holdings and Mafco Worldwide. The Company's businesses are organized along four business segments: Harland Clarke, Harland Financial Solutions, Scantron and Licorice Products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Records $46.90M Liability at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$46,909,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$50,022,000, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$48,759,000 at March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009) On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with the Bankruptcy Court (Case No. 03-51524) seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code as a means to resolve claims asserted against it related to the use of asbestos in its products decades ago. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation manufactures resilient flooring, serving both residential and commercial markets. Its sheet, tile and plank products are available in various designs and colors, and are used in remodeling, manufactured housing, new construction and commercial applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Still Has $13.56M Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities remain at US$13,563,000 as of June 30, 2009, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$13,563,000 as of March 31, 2009, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009) Long-term insurance for asbestos-related liabilities were US$13,509,000 as of June 30, 2009, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2008. Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division makes adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and storage. The Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient sheet and tile flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amid asbestos-related suits. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,257 Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in 1,257 pending claims involving 1,812 individuals as of June 30, 2009. The Company was a co-defendant with many other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in 1,281 pending claims involving 1,836 individuals as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009) The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded 113 new claims, 11 settlements, and 114 dismissals. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 356 new claims, 13 settlements, 434 dismissals, and 1,269 pending claims. The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims were US$3 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009 and US$900,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, all of which were paid by the Company's insurance carriers, as were the related defense costs. The Company has first-layer excess umbrella policies with several insurers, which include coverage for the Company's asbestos related liabilities (Umbrella Coverage). In addition to coverage available under the Umbrella Coverage, the Company has additional excess liability insurance policies that should provide further coverage if and when limits of certain policies within the Umbrella Coverage exhaust. The estimated range of liability for settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2014 was US$13.6 million to US$44 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company said it believes no amount within this range is more likely than any other, and accordingly has recorded a liability of US$13.6 million as of June 30, 3009 in its financial statements which represents a probable and reasonably estimable amount for the future liability at the present time. The Company also said it believes that based on this liability estimate, the corresponding amount of insurance probable of recovery is US$13.5 million as of June 30, 2009, which has been included in Other assets. Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division makes adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and storage. The Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient sheet and tile flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amid asbestos-related suits. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nevamar Subject to Workers' Compensation Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Panolam Industries International, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Nevamar Holding Corp., is subject to asbestos-related workers' compensation claims. During 2006, Nevamar was named a defendant in numerous workers' compensation claims filed on behalf of current and former employees at the Hampton, S.C., facility alleging injury in the course of employment due to alleged exposure to asbestos and unidentified chemicals. Under the ownership of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the Hampton facility manufactured asbestos-based products until 1975. In 2004 and 2005, Nevamar, Westinghouse and International Paper Company (IP) settled 10 workers' compensation claims related to alleged asbestos exposure. Under a 2005 agreement with IP, Nevamar's liability for workers compensation claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos brought by employees hired before July 1, 2002, was capped at 15 percent of any damages it shares with IP until Nevamar has paid an aggregate of US$70,000 at which point the Company would have no responsibility for any additional shared damages. On Nov. 21, 2008, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with IP to settle all of these workers' compensation claims for a cash sum including any related claims that are filed by any person who was previously employed, was currently employed or became employed by Nevamar on or before Dec. 31, 2008 for a cash payment in an amount that had been fully reserved for by the Company. Employees hired by Nevamar after Dec. 31, 2008 and who file claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos are not covered by this settlement agreement. The Company paid the settlement amount in November 2008. Shelton, Conn.-based Panolam Industries International, Inc. designs, manufactures and distributes decorative laminates in the United States and Canada. Products are marketed under the Panolam, Pluswood, Nevamar and Pionite brand names. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prime Group Has $8.1M June 30 Cleanup Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prime Group Realty Trust recorded a liability of US$8.1 million related to asbestos abatement and an asset of US$9 million as of June 30, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 14, 2009. The Company's 330 N. Wabash Avenue office property currently contains asbestos in the form of spray-on insulation located on the decking and beams of the building. The Company has been informed by its environmental consultants that the asbestos in 330 N. Wabash Avenue is being properly maintained and no remediation of the asbestos is necessary. A conditional asset retirement obligation for the removal of asbestos at the 330 N. Wabash Avenue property was estimated to be US$7.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. For the six months ended June 30, 2009, this obligation increased as follows: -- An increase in its cost estimate of US$900,000 due to the increased probability of abatement as lease terminations moved closer; -- A US$400,000 increase in the liability based on the increased present value of anticipated future abatement expenditures as the estimated date of abatement comes closer; and --- Payments of US$1 million were made for asbestos abatement. Chicago-based Prime Group Realty Trust is a real estate investment trust (REIT), which owns, manages, leases, develops and redevelops office and industrial real estate, primarily in the Chicago metropolitan area. As of June 30, 2009, the Company's portfolio of properties consists of nine office properties, containing an aggregate of 3.5 million net rentable square feet. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BMCA Still Subject to Bodily Injury Proceedings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Building Materials Corporation of America (d/b/a GAF Materials) is still involved in asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fibers contained in products sold by its indirect parent, G-I Holdings Inc., or its predecessors. In connection with its formation, the Company contractually assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of liabilities of G-I Holdings for asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber contained in products sold by G-I Holdings or its predecessors. As of March 30, 1997, the Company paid all of its assumed liabilities for Asbestos Claims. G-I Holdings has agreed to indemnify the Company against any other existing or future Asbestos Claims if asserted against the Company. In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due to Asbestos Claims. About 1,900 Asbestos Claims were filed against the Company prior to Feb. 2, 2001. On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an Asbestos Claim against the Company. On June 22, 2001 and Feb. 22, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court converted the temporary restraints into a preliminary injunction prohibiting the bringing or prosecution of any such Asbestos Claims against the Company. On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company has no successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the alter ego of G-I Holdings (BMCA Action). One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants (creditors' committee), subsequently filed a counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaration that the Company has successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is the alter ego of G-I Holdings. On May 13, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings Bankruptcy Court withdrew the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court. By order dated May 30, 2008, the District Court dismissed the BMCA Action without ruling on the merits of the Company's position that it has no successor liability for Asbestos Claims. On or about Feb. 8, 2001, the creditors' committee filed a complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey against G-I Holdings and the Company. On March 21, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs' application for interim relief. In November 2002, the creditors' committee, joined in by the legal representative of present and future holders of asbestos-related claims, moved for appointment of a trustee in the G-I Holdings bankruptcy. In December 2002, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion. The creditors' committee appealed the ruling to the U.S. District Court, which denied the appeal on June 27, 2003. The creditors' committee appealed the denial to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal on Sept. 24, 2004. The creditors' committee filed a petition with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its denial of the creditors' committee's appeal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on Oct. 26, 2004. On July 7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing the creditors' committee to commence an adversary proceeding against the Company and others challenging, as a fraudulent conveyance, certain transactions entered into in connection with the Company's formation in 1994, in which G-I Holdings caused to be transferred to the Company all of its roofing business and assets and in which the Company assumed certain liabilities relating to those assets, including a specified amount of liabilities for Asbestos Claims (1994 transaction). On July 20, 2004, the creditors' committee appealed certain aspects of the Bankruptcy Court's order (and a June 8, 2004 decision upon which the order was based). G-I Holdings, the holders of the Company's bank and bond debt, and the Company cross-appealed. The District Court entered an order on June 21, 2006 affirming in part and vacating in part the Bankruptcy Court's July 7, 2004 order. On Aug. 22, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court stayed an authorization proceeding and other adversary proceedings effective upon the filing of a Joint Plan of Reorganization by G-I Holdings, the creditors' committee and the legal representative of present and future holders of asbestos-related claims. The Company has been advised by G-I Holdings that on Aug. 12, 2008, G-I Holdings reached an agreement with the creditors' committee and the legal representative of present and future holders of asbestos-related claims to jointly file a plan of reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court that will provide for settlement of Asbestos Claims and all related litigation. A Joint Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on Aug. 21, 2008, and a First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on Oct. 30, 2008. G-I Holdings filed with the Bankruptcy Court a Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings on Dec. 3, 2008, a Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings on July 2, 2009, and a Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings on July 28, 2009. Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corporation of America (d/b/a GAF Materials) deals in shingles and roofing systems, flashings, vents, decorative stone for fireplaces, and wrought iron balusters. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Holdings Still Subject to Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sears Holdings Corporation is still involved and subject to legal proceedings, which include asbestos exposure allegations. These claims may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims (potentially in large amounts) or as well as other types of relief. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 24, 2009. Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based Sears Holdings Corporation is a broadline retailer with 2,297 full-line and 1,233 specialty retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and Sears and 388 full-line and specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc., a 73 percent-owned unit. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Briggs & Stratton Corporation continues to be subject to various product liability (including asbestos-related liability actions), according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 27, 2009. The reserve for product and general liability claims (which includes asbestos-related liabilities) was US$7.1 million on June 28, 2009 and US$6.3 million on June 29, 2008. Wauwatosa, Wis.-based Briggs & Stratton Corporation produces air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. The Company designs, manufactures, markets and services these products for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Subject to Product Liability Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Deere & Company is still subject to various unresolved legal actions, which arise in the normal course of its business, the most prevalent of which relate to product liability (including asbestos-related liability), retail credit, software licensing, patent and trademark matters. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 28, 2009. Moline, Ill.-based Deere & Company makes farm equipment. The Company also produces construction, forestry, industrial, and lawn-care equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sisson Claim v. 41 Defendants Filed on Aug. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos claim filed by Harles and Betty Sisson, of Walnut Hill, Ill., against 41 defendant corporations was filed on Aug. 31, 2009, in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Sisson was diagnosed with cancer on March 9, 2009. According to the Sissons, from 1951 to 1970, Mr. Sisson was a quartermaster, electronic technician and construction technician in the U.S. Navy and from 1979 to 1980 was an electrician at Blackburn Electric Company. He was also employed as an electrician helper in 1979 at DuPont Chemical Company. The Sissons claims Mr. Sisson's exposure to asbestos was completely foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants. The Sissons seek judgment of more than US$100,000, economic damages in excess of US$200,000, compensatory damages in excess of US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of US$100,000, plus punitive damages in an amount sufficient enough to punish the defendants for their conduct and other relief the court deems just. Randy Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian & Associates represent the Sissons in Case No. 09-L-463. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrell Case Filed v. 36 Companies in Jefferson ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tommy J. and Linda Harrell, on Aug. 31, 2009, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 36 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. Defendants in the suit include Afton Pumps Inc., Amerflex Rubber and Gasket, AMETEK Inc., BWIP, CBS Corporation, CertainTeed Corporation, FMC Corporation, Foster Wheeler Energy Limited, Georgia Pacific LLC, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Goulds Pumps Incorporated, Ingersoll-Rand plc, J-M Manufacturing Company Inc., The J. Graves Insulation Company Inc., John Crane Inc., Lamons Gasket Company, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Pfizer Inc., Rapid-American, Standco Industries Inc., Triplex, Union Carbide Corporation, Viacom Inc., Yarway Corporation, and Zurn Industries. Mr. Harrell worked as a pipefitter, welder and pipeliner from 1957 until 2004, where he says he was exposed to asbestos- containing products. The Harrells claim Mr. Harrell was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma on July 30, 2009. According to the suit, the couple claims the defendants failed to advise Mr. Harrell about what would be safe apparel to wear while working around the products. They say the defendant companies were negligent by failing to timely warn Mr. Harrell about the dangers of asbestos. In the lawsuit, the couple seeks unspecified general, special, punitive and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post- judgment interest and for other relief the Court deems appropriate. Aaron J. DeLuca, Esq., and Barrett B. Naman, Esq., of DeLuca and Nemeroff in Houston, represent the Harrells. Case No. B184-809 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doyle's Lawsuit v. 9 Companies Filed on Aug. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos-related lawsuit, styled Patrick Doyle et ux vs. Chevron USA et al, was filed on Aug. 26, 2009 in Jefferson County District Court, The Southeast Texas Record reports. The plaintiffs sued nine defendant corporations, claiming an asbestos-related disease caused by the defendants killed their benefactor. They claim Barbara was exposed to asbestos through family members who worked for the defendants. The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to test the asbestos- containing products before they were introduced into the stream of commerce, The plaintiffs are suing for exemplary damages. They are represented by Bryan Blevins, Esq. Judge Milton Shuffield presides over Case No. D184-782. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coldfoot to Pay $5,100 Penalty for CAA Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coldfoot Environmental Services, Inc., an asbestos abatement and demolition contractor in Anchorage, Alaska, has agreed to pay a US$5,100 penalty and perform a community service project to settle with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for alleged violations of the asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (asbestos NESHAP), under the Clean Air Act, according to an EPA press release dated Sept. 8, 2009. In August 2007 and April 2008, EPA conducted asbestos compliance inspections at three Alaska demolition sites: Harborview Hospital and Public Warehouse #2 in Valdez, and the Subport Building in Juneau. The results of those inspections found that Coldfoot failed to update their written notices when the official start dates had changed, making it more difficult for EPA's inspector to arrive at the right time to observe the projects. At the hospital job site in Valdez, the contractor expanded the project to include an additional 75,000 square feet of regulated asbestos debris in the crawlspace, again without updating the notice to EPA. In addition to paying the fine, Coldfoot will perform a Supplemental Environmental Project valued at US$14,800. The project requires Coldfoot to remove asbestos insulation from a boiler and piping in a building owned by a local nonprofit theater group located in Anchorage, Alaska. The theater group lacks funds to safely remove the asbestos. Marcia Combes, director of EPA's Alaska Operations Office, said, "We hope that asbestos demolition contractors like Coldfoot learn from this situation. When you are tearing down or renovating a structure that has asbestos, it is important to notify EPA so we have timely and accurate information to conduct our inspections and ensure contractors are following the asbestos regulations." Federal regulations require a thorough inspection of a facility for the presence of asbestos prior to any demolition or renovation activity, as well as advance notice to EPA or the state or local agency that administers the asbestos NESHAP program. If a threshold amount of asbestos is found, contractors are required to remove and dispose of the material according to certain requirements such as using water to wet the asbestos during removal, carefully handling, bagging and labeling of wastes, and properly disposing of them at permitted landfills. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Ariz. Schools to Pay $22T for AHERA Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined two Arizona charter school operators a combined total of US$22,030 for alleged violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), according to an EPA press release dated Sept. 8, 2009. In April 2007, EPA inspectors discovered seven Arizona charter schools operated by Pointe Educational Services, and The Charter Foundation had not been inspected to determine if asbestos- containing materials were present in the schools' buildings and no asbestos management plans for the schools were created. Katherine Taylor, associate director for the Communities and Ecosystems Division in EPA's Pacific Southwest region, said, "Asbestos can potentially endanger the health of students, teachers, and employees at schools. All nonprofit schools subject to AHERA, including charter schools, need to conduct asbestos inspections and have asbestos management plans." The EPA fined Pointe Educational Services US$13,700 and The Charter Foundation US$8,330. The schools operated by Pointe Educational Services are: -- North Pointe Academy, located at 4941 West Union Hills Drive in Glendale -- North Pointe Preparatory, located at 10215 N. 43rd Ave in Phoenix -- Pinnacle Pointe Academy, located at 6753 West Pinnacle Peak Road in Glendale The schools then being operated by The Charter Foundation are: -- AmeriSchool Academy Yuma Campus, located at 2098 S. 3rd Ave in Yuma -- AmeriSchool Academy Country Club Campus, located at 1150 North country Club in Tucson -- College Preparatory Academy Broadway Campus, located at 7444 E. Broadway in Tucson -- AmeriSchool Academy Camelback Campus, located at 1333 West Camelback Road in Phoenix Each school is allowed to subtract properly documented costs of complying with the regulations from the penalty amount. Accredited inspectors have since inspected these schools and a management plan was prepared for each school. Asbestos-containing building materials were found at North Pointe Preparatory. Inspectors found no asbestos containing building materials at the other schools. Federal law requires that local education agencies, which run schools subject to AHERA, must conduct an initial inspection using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing building material is present and develop a management plan addressing the asbestos materials found in the school Schools subject to AHERA that do not contain asbestos-containing material must still have a management plan which identifies the designated person and includes the architect's statement or building inspection and the annual notification to parents, teachers, and employees regarding the availability of the plan. Under AHERA, local education agencies must appoint a designated person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure compliance with federal regulations. Finally, schools with asbestos-containing materials must conduct periodic surveillance and re-inspections, properly train the maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records documenting those activities in its management plan. Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the management plan in its administrative office and at the school which must be made available for inspection by parents, teachers, and the general public. ********* 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. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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 * * *