/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091113.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, November 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 225
Headlines
ADVANTAGE AUTO: RICO Suit Alleges Usurious 86% Interest Rate
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement of Calif. Minimum Wage Suit Pending
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Responds to Gift Card Holders Suit in Calif.
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Wage & Overtime Pay Violations Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Starts Discovery in Wage Violation Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Deal in Suit Over Rest & Meal Periods Pending
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Managers Wage Violation Suit
CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTIONS: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: $12 Million Settlement Approved, But Fees Cut
COMCAST CORP: Proposed Settlement of "Dale" Case in N.D. Ga.
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Federal Securities Lawsuits Pending in Md.
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit Pending in Md.
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Norsworthy Non-Suits Action Pending in Texas
ICT GROUP: Named as Nominal Defendant in Sykes Merger Suits
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Motion for Lead Plaintiff Remains Pending
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: 9th Circuit Reverses Ruling Dismissing Suit
MDL 1486: Subject to Appeal, Rust Anticipates Dec. Distribution
MDL 1554: Mock Trial Result Doesn't Affect $586M IPO Settlement
SANDISK CORP: Hearing in Antitrust Suit Continued to December 1
SPOKANE COUNTY: $492,000 Settlement of Jail Booking Fee Case
UNITED STATES: Legal Immigrants to Get Citizenship in Settlement
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: WrinkleFree Eyes & Retinol Claims Challenged
VERISIGN INC: Stock Option Grants Suit Still Pending in Calif.
WATERS CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
New Securities Fraud Cases
LIMITED BRANDS: Securities Fraud Complaint Filed in S.D. Ohio
STEC INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. Calif.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual to Pay Armstrong Trust $300 Mil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Still Involved in Aaron Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 180 Cases Still Pending v. Pepco in Md. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCC Affiliates Still Involved in Asarco Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Facing 50T Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Facing Lawsuits in Tex. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Facing Lawsuits in Pa. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 75,357 Open Claims Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCC Records $117M Costs for Defense, Resolution
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCC Cites $252M Defense, Resolution Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Still Facing N.Y. Coverage Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Still Awaits Decision on A.P. Green Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Still Involved in Keasbey Case in New York
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Involved in Burns & Roe's Coverage Disputes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Hearing to Continue through January 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l. Has $1.091B Net Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l. Has 1,312 Policyholders at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Suits Filed on Oct. 19-23 in Madison County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plummer's Case v. Foreign Firms Filed on Nov. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Woman's Action v. Hardie, Gov't. Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas Case v. Hardie Unit Settled on Nov. 10
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Wins Appeal in Mahoney Injury Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Settlement Reached in Monterey Courthouse Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Acknowledges AUD160Mil Gov't. Assistance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Industries Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Anadarko Petroleum
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Expends $1.845Mil for Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Cites $28.1M Current Liability at Oct. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Still Party to Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Reserves $90M for Claims at Sept. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 570 Actions Ongoing v. MeadWestvaco at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 61,820 Claims Ongoing v. CBS Corp. at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $151.4M Sept. 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,870 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Howden Case v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Filed on Aug. 4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Units Facing 2,700 Open Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Has $25M Non-Current Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alliant Energy Unit Has $1.2M Settled Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Faces 10,300 Cases (38,700 Claims)
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasty Baking Co. Records $7.3MM ARO at Sept. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. STERIS Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 106,121 Open Claims Ongoing v. ITT at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Party to Cannon Electric Lawsuit in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2,800 Claims Filed v. MetLife Unit at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Shipyards Has 565 Open Claims at Sept. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 23 of Douglas Emmett's Properties Have Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 38 Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Noble at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Still Subject to Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Inc. Facing 97 Injury Actions at Oct. 15
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ladish Co. Has 15 Claims in 3 States at Nov. 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 201 Claims Ongoing v. Rogers Corp. at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edinburgh Council Penalized for Safety Breaches
*********
ADVANTAGE AUTO: RICO Suit Alleges Usurious 86% Interest Rate
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class action claims
Advantage Auto Leasing Finance Co., Prestige Auto Sales of NY,
and Auto Factors charge usurious interest of more than 86 percent
without adequate disclosures, in Brooklyn Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Azema v. Advantage Auto Finance
Company LLC, Case No. 09-cv-04855 (E.D.N.Y.) (Vitaliano, J.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/10/Autos.pdf
The Complaint indicates that Mr. Azema agreed to purchase a 2002
Nissan Altima for $5,961. He made a $3,000 down payment in cash
and apparently signed a note promising to make 24 $279.33 monthly
payments, bringing the total cost of the vehicle to more than
$9,700.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin Mushkin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARTIN MUSHKIN, L.L.C.
1100 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: 203-252-2357
- and -
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: 203-653-2250
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement of Calif. Minimum Wage Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a class action complaint against BJ's
Restaurants, Inc., is pending approval.
On Feb. 5, 2004, a former employee of the company, on behalf of
herself, and allegedly other employees, filed a class action
complaint in Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, Case
Number BC310146, and on March 16, 2004, filed an amended
complaint, alleging causes of action for:
(1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;
(2) failure to allow meal breaks;
(3) failure to allow rest breaks;
(4) waiting time penalties;
(5) civil penalties;
(6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit;
(7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and,
(8) disgorgement of illicit profits.
On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her second,
third, fourth and fifth causes of action.
During September 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to binding
arbitration of the action.
On March 2, 2008, and on March 19, 2008, one of Plaintiff's
attorneys filed a notice with the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, alleging failure to keep adequate pay records
and to pay Plaintiff minimum wage.
To the company's knowledge, the Agency has not responded to
either of these notices.
The parties met for mediation on a non-binding basis.
In November 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter
subject to approval from the arbitrator and/or the court.
No further updates were reported in the company's Nov.4, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 29, 2009.
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Responds to Gift Card Holders Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. has responded to a class action complaint
by filing a demurrer challenging the claim under Civil Code
Section 1749.5, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2009, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 29, 2009.
On July 16, 2009, Robert Cho, an individual, on behalf of himself
and allegedly other recipients or holders in California of our
gift cards, filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles County,
California, Superior Court, Case Number BC417923, alleging causes
of action for unlawful and deceptive trade practices and
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for failing to
redeem or replace a gift card and deducting a dormancy fee, for
violation of California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 and for declaratory relief.
The complaint seeks restitution, an injunction against the
alleged unfair practices, and attorneys' fees.
Discovery has begun.
The company has responded to the complaint by filing a demurrer
challenging the claim under Civil Code Section 1749.5.
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Wage & Overtime Pay Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., intends to defend a class action
complaint filed by an employee on behalf of himself and allegedly
other employees.
On April 6, 2009, an employee filed a class action complaint in
Orange County, California, Superior Court, Case Number 30-2009,
00259460, on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees.
The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay
plaintiff and other alleged class members regular wages and
overtime pay, failure to maintain the designated wage scale and
secret payment of lower wages, the greater of actual damages or
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
restitution of wages and injunction for violation of California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.
The complaint also seeks interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The parties have agreed to meet for non-binding mediation.
The company has yet to respond to the complaint.
No further updates were reported in the company's Nov.4, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 29, 2009.
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Starts Discovery in Wage Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., has begun discovery in a class action
complaint filed on Feb. 4, 2009, by an employee, on behalf of
himself and allegedly other employees.
The class action complaint filed in Fresno County, California,
Superior Court, Case Number 09 CE CG 00374DRF, was served on the
company in the second quarter of 2009.
The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay wages
for on-call time, for violation of California Business and
Professional Code section 17200, and for penalties for unpaid
wages.
The complaint also seeks a constructive trust on money found
unlawfully acquired, an injunction against failure to pay wages,
restitution, interest, attorney's fees and costs.
On Aug. 14, 2009, a first amended complaint was filed, in which
two other employees joined the action as plaintiffs.
The company has not yet responded to the complaint. The company
however has begun discovery.
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Deal in Suit Over Rest & Meal Periods Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a former employee's purported class action
lawsuit against BJ's Restaurants, Inc., is pending final approval
from the Orange County, California, Superior Court.
On Feb. 16, 2006, a former employee filed a lawsuit in Orange
County, California, Superior Court, Case Number 06CC00030, on
behalf of herself and allegedly other employees, for alleged
failure to provide rest periods and meal periods and violation of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.
The company has answered the complaint, denying the allegations
and raising various additional defenses.
The parties met for mediation on a non-binding basis.
In May 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter subject to
final approval from the court.
The court has given preliminary approval of the settlement.
No further updates were reported in the company's Nov.4, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 29, 2009.
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Managers Wage Violation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., intends to defend complaint filed by an
employee on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees in
its California restaurant, according to the company's Nov.4,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 29, 2009.
On Aug. 25, 2009, a former employee of the filed a lawsuit in Los
Angeles County, California, Superior Court, Case Number BC420459,
on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees, namely the
company's California restaurant assistant managers, kitchen
managers and managers.
The complaint alleges the company's California restaurant
assistant managers are not exempt for compensation purposes and
alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods, failure to pay
wages timely, penalties for unpaid wages, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to keep accurate payroll
records and for violation of California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200. The complaint also seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, an injunction against unfair practices, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The company has not yet responded to the complaint.
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant
& Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one
of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its
recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is
a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu
features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted
beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas,
sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie
cookie. The company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants
feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers
are produced and sold.
CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTIONS: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed an invasion-of-privacy
class action filed by Illinois citizens who submitted voter
registration forms at the state Department of Motor Vehicles.
The complaint flunks the "duck test," Judge Terence Evans wrote,
because the lead plaintiff "says, in effect, that if it walks
like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it sure
as heck isn't a duck."
A copy of the slip opinion in Lake v. Neal, et al., No. 08-3765
(7th Cir.), is available at:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/SI1FG1MC.pdf
The underlying lawsuit is Lake v. Neal, et al., Case No.
07 C 2742 (N.D. Ill.) (Gettleman, J.).
CHILDREN'S PLACE: $12 Million Settlement Approved, But Fees Cut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge in Manhattan
approved the $12 million settlement of a securities fraud class
action against directors of The Children's Place, but called the
request for $3.24 million in attorney fees "excessive."
A copy of the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin's 15-page Opinion and
Order in Hall v. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-cv-8252 (S.D.N.Y.), dated Nov. 2, 2009, is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/10/Childrens%20Place.pdf
Judge Scheindlin concludes that an award of $1,800,000 -- 15% of
the settlement fund and a 2.08 lodestar multiplier -- is more
than adequate to compensate Class Counsel for its effort.
The Lead Plaintiff and Class are represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631-367-7100
- and -
Nathan M. Jenkins, Esq.
JENKINS & CARTER
501 Hammill Lane
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: 775-829-7800
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan D. Polkes, Esq.
David R. Fertig, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: 212-310-8000
- and -
Robert J. Jossen, Esq.
Michael J. GIlbert, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Telephone: 212-698-3500
- and -
Richard P. Swanson, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: 212-715-1179
COMCAST CORP: Proposed Settlement of "Dale" Case in N.D. Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
GENE DALE, REBECCA SHRAGER, )
VALERIE JANSSENS, RICHARD )
RICHMOND, CARLYCE BURNS, and )
all others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) CASE NO. 1:05-CV-03315-WCO
v. )
)
COMCAST CORPORATION and COMCAST )
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
If you are or were a subscriber of Comcast, its subsidiaries or
affiliates, or any of their predecessors (including AT&T
Broadband) in Georgia between October 20, 1999 and the present
("Settlement Class"), your rights may be affected by a
Settlement. IF YOU DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE CLASS DEFINED ABOVE,
YOU MAY IGNORE THIS NOTICE. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT
CLASS, THIS IS NOT A NOTICE OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU. YOU MAY
BENEFIT FROM READING THIS NOTICE. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE
CAREFULLY.
WHAT THIS LAWSUIT IS ABOUT:
The Subject Lawsuit involves claims by Gene Dale, Rebecca
Shrager, Valerie Janssens, Richard Richmond, and Carlyce Burns
that Defendants breached their agreements with certain
subscribers in certain areas in Georgia in connection with
Comcast''s assessment of franchise fees to its cable television
subscribers, including the assessment of franchise fees for time
periods prior to those subscribers'' periods of service from
October 20, 1999 to the present. Defendants have denied liability
and raised certain defenses to Plaintiffs'' claims, which if
sustained by the Court, may minimize or defeat any recovery for
the Settlement Class. The parties desire to settle the Subject
Lawsuit. This settlement is made without any admission of
liability and prior to any final adjudication of the merits of
the case. If the settlement is approved by the Court, persons
within the Settlement Class who do not request to be excluded
will be barred from asserting further legal claims against the
Defendants related to the pass-through of franchise fees.
WHO IS EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS:
The Settlement Class shall exclude: (i) those persons who opt out
of this Settlement; (ii) current employees of Comcast; (iii)
Class Counsel and their employees; and (iv) the Judge and his
staff in this case.
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT:
IF YOU ARE A CURRENT SUBSCRIBER:
Comcast in Georgia will quarterly review the pass-through rate
applied to invoices and return the amount of over-collection of
franchise fees, if any, and pass through the amount of under-
collection of franchise fees as soon as is practical. Current
subscribers in the Settlement Class shall receive a single
"supplemental notice" with one of their regular monthly invoices
in a form substantially similar to Exhibit "E," advising in
explicit language that: (a) they could be charged for franchise
fees that were incurred for a time preceding their time as
subscribers; and (b) for Georgia subscribers, Comcast will
quarterly review the pass-through rate applied to invoices with
the goal of returning any amount of over-collection of franchise
fees as soon as is practical. Additionally, for Comcast systems
in Georgia that have an amount of undercollected franchise fees
as of December 31, 2008 ("Undercollected Franchise Fee Amount"),
Defendants will adjust the franchise fee pass-through rate for
2010 to forego whichever is the lesser amount of: (a) 50% of the
Undercollected Franchise Fee Amount or (b) the remainder of the
under-collection outstanding as of December 31, 2009.
IF YOU ARE A FORMER SUBSCRIBER:
Your relief will be a contribution by Comcast to a Georgia
charity or charities mutually acceptable to the Parties in the
amount of $50,000.00.
PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY''S FEES AND EXPENSES:
Subject to Court approval, Comcast has agreed to pay Attorney's
Fees and Costs (including costs of mediation) and Class
Representatives'' Fees to Class Counsel in an amount of
$462,962.50. This amount will be paid by the Defendants and will
not deplete any benefits to the Settlement Class in any way.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, THESE ARE YOUR OPTIONS:
(1) EXCLUDE YOURSELF:
If you wish to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
mail a written request for exclusion to Class Counsel, at the
address below, postmarked no later than November 25, 2009. The
request must: (1) indicate that you are requesting "exclusion"
from the Settlement Class; (2) contain the full name and current
address of the person requesting exclusion; (3) contain the title
of the Subject Lawsuit: "Dale v. Comcast"; and (4) be signed by
you.
(2) OBJECT:
If you are a Settlement Class Member and have not excluded
yourself, you can object to the Settlement by submitting a
written objection by mail or hand delivery, no later than
December 1, 2009, to Class Counsel, Comcast Counsel, and the
Court at the addresses below. An objection must be in writing
and: (1) contain the full name and current address of the person
objecting; (2) contain the title of the Subject Lawsuit: "Dale v.
Comcast;" (3) state the reasons for the objection; and (4) be
accompanied by any evidence, briefs, motions or other materials
you intend to offer in support of your objection.
FAIRNESS HEARING:
The Court will hold a "Fairness Hearing" in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
75 Spring Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, on December 21,
2009, at 11:00 a.m. to consider any objections and whether to
approve the Settlement. If you have submitted a timely written
objection to the Settlement, you (or your lawyer) can speak at
the Fairness Hearing; however, you do not need to be present for
the Court to consider your objection.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
CLASS COUNSEL:
William A. Pannell, Esq.
William A. Pannell, P.C.
433 Chateau Drive, NW
Atlanta, GA 30305
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL:
Jaime A. Bianchi, Esq.
White & Case LLP
200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900
Miami, FL 33131-2352
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The description in this Notice is general and does not cover all
of the issues and the proceedings thus far. For more details
about the lawsuit and the Settlement, you may direct questions to
Class Counsel at the address above, visit:
http://www.dalesettlement.com/
or review the court file during business hours at the Office of
the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, 75 Spring Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR
COMCAST DIRECTLY WITH ANY QUESTIONS.
/s/ William C. O''Kelley
United States District Court Judge
Northern District of Georgia
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Federal Securities Lawsuits Pending in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group Inc. continues to face federal
securities class-action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland, according to the company's
Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
Three federal securities class action lawsuits have been filed in
the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York
and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and November
2008.
The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who
acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A
Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of Constellation
Energy between Jan. 30, 2008 and Sept. 16, 2008, and who acquired
Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008.
The securities class actions generally allege that Constellation
Energy, a number of its present or former officers or directors,
and the underwriters violated the securities laws by issuing a
false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in
connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008 offering of
Debentures.
The securities class actions also allege that Constellation
Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of
material undisclosed information which contradicted public
statements including in connection with its announcements of
financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first
quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of
its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.
The securities class actions seek, among other things,
certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory
damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees,
and rescission damages.
The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed there to the
District of Maryland, and the actions have since been transferred
for coordination with the securities class action filed there.
On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed
a consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 17, 2009.
Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com/-- a
FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it is
the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to large
commercial and industrial customers and the nation's largest
wholesale power seller. Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities. It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., its regulated utility in Central
Maryland.
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit Pending in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint in a class-action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act remains
pending, according to Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s Nov. 6,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
In the fall of 2008, multiple class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland and the
Southern District of New York against Constellation Energy; Mayo
A. Shattuck III, Constellation Energy's Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer; and others in their roles
as fiduciaries of the Constellation Energy Employee Savings Plan.
The actions, which have been consolidated into one action in
Maryland, allege that the defendants, in violation of various
sections of ERISA, breached their fiduciary duties to prudently
and loyally manage Constellation Energy Savings Plan's assets by
designating Constellation Energy common stock as an investment,
by failing to properly provide accurate information about the
investment, by failing to avoid conflicts of interest, by failing
to properly monitor the investment and by failing to properly
monitor other fiduciaries.
The plaintiffs seek to compel the defendants to reimburse the
plaintiffs and the Constellation Energy Savings Plan for all
losses resulting from the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty,
to impose a constructive trust on any unjust enrichment, to award
actual damages with pre- and post-judgment interest, to award
appropriate equitable relief including injunction and restitution
and to award costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com/-- a
FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it is
the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to large
commercial and industrial customers and the nation's largest
wholesale power seller. Constellation Energy also
manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive
industries and utilities. It owns a diversified fleet of 83
generating units located throughout the United States, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The
company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., its regulated utility in Central
Maryland.
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Norsworthy Non-Suits Action Pending in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Norsworthy has non-suited (or voluntarily dismissed, or
voluntarily discontinued) the action styled John D. Norsworthy,
on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. i2
Technologies, Inc., et al.
On Aug. 11, 2008, two suits were filed in state district court in
Texas against, among others, the company and certain members of
its Board of Directors.
Each of the two suits sought injunctive relief prohibiting the
closing of the sale of the company's common stock to an affiliate
of JDA Software Group, Inc., and each of the named plaintiffs
purported to represent a class of holders of the company's common
stock.
One of the two suits was thereafter dismissed by the plaintiff.
The other, styled John D. Norsworthy, on Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, v. i2 Technologies, Inc., et al.,
remained pending in the 134th District Court of Dallas County,
Texas.
On Nov. 5, 2008, the District Court held a hearing on Plaintiff
Norsworthy's motion for a temporary restraining order, and at the
conclusion of the hearing denied the motion in its entirety.
On May 29, 2009, Mr. Norsworthy non-suited this action as to all
defendants.
No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
I2 Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.i2.com/-- provides supply
chain management solutions, consisting of various software and
service offerings. In addition to application software, the
company offers hosted software solutions such as business
optimization and technical consulting, managed services,
training, solution maintenance, software upgrades and
development.
ICT GROUP: Named as Nominal Defendant in Sykes Merger Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
ICT Group, Inc., has been named as a nominal defendant in
lawsuits resulting from its proposed merger with Sykes
Enterprises Inc., according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
On Oct. 9, 2009, a shareholder class action and derivative suit
was filed by two shareholders in the Court of Common Pleas of
Bucks County, Pennsylvania, against ICT and its directors, styled
as United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers
Local Union No. 8 Annuity Fund and United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers and Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 Pension Fund
vs. John J. Brennan, Donald P. Brennan, Gordon Coburn, Bernard
Somers, John Stoops, Richard R. Roscitt, Eileen S. Fusco, Case
No. 2009-10761, also naming ICT as a nominal defendant.
On Oct. 13, 2009, a shareholder derivative suit was filed by an
individual shareholder in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks
County, Pennsylvania, against ICT's directors and Sykes, styled
as Christopher Green vs. John J. Brennan, Donald P. Brennan,
Gordon Coburn, Bernard Somers, John Stoops, Richard R. Roscitt,
Eileen S. Fusco & Sykes Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2009-10827,
also naming ICT as a nominal defendant.
On Oct. 29, 2009, a shareholder class action and derivative suit
was filed by an individual shareholder in the Court of Common
Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, against ICTs' directors and
Sykes, styled as Mitesh Patel vs. John Brennan, Donald Brennan,
Bernard Somers, John Stoops, Gordon Coburn, Richard Roscitt,
Eileen Fusco, Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated, SH Merger
Subsidiary I, Inc., and SH Merger Subsidiary II, LLC, Case No.
2009-11514, also naming ICT as a nominal defendant.
Collectively, these complaints allege claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement and corporate waste against
the named defendants and seek to enjoin the proposed acquisition
of ICT by Sykes and recovery of certain costs allegedly incurred
by the plaintiffs.
ICT Group, Inc. -- http://www.ictgroup.com/-- is a global
provider of outsourced customer management and business process
outsourcing (BPO) solutions. The company's mix of customer
service, technology and back-office solutions includes customer
care/retention, cross-selling/upselling, technical support and
collections, database marketing, data entry/management, e-mail
response management, remittance processing and other back-office
business processing services. The company also offers a suite of
BPO technologies, which are available on a hosted basis, for use
by clients at their own in-house facilities, or on a co-sourced
basis in conjunction with its integrated, multi-channel
operations centers.
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Motion for Lead Plaintiff Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel in a
putative class action against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., remains
pending, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
A putative class action was filed on July 17, 2009 against:
-- the company;
-- William J. Hemelt, President and Chief Executive Officer
(previously Acting President, Chief Financial Office and
Chief Operating Officer);
-- Samuel C. Cowley, Vice President of Business
Development, General Counsel and Secretary;
-- Timothy L. Clarot, Vice President of Research &
Development; and
-- Carl J. Johnson, former President and Chief Executive
Officer;
alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The suit is Shapiro et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al.,
filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, Case No.
2:09-cv-01479-ECV.
The lawsuit alleges that the company and the named officers
failed to disclose to the Food and Drug Administration and to the
public information about adverse events regarding the Zicam Cold
Remedy nasal gel products and that the company and such officers
made false and misleading statements regarding the company's
compliance with FDA regulations.
The motion for lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel is
pending.
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better. Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand. The company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-
Symptom relief, and other cough/cold. In addition, the company
had sold products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.
Its Zicam products are marketed in the cough and cold market
category. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal
2009), the company's top 15 customers accounted for more than 80%
of its net sales and three customers each accounted for more than
10% of the Company's net sales. In May 2008, the company formed
Zicam Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam products in
Canada.
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: 9th Circuit Reverses Ruling Dismissing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, has reversed
the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissing the consolidated class action lawsuit against
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 6,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
Two class action lawsuits were filed in April and May 2004
against the company, its previous President and Chief Executive
Officer, Carl J. Johnson, and William J. Hemelt its President and
Chief Executive Officer (previously Acting President, Chief
Financial Office and Chief Operating Officer), alleging
violations of federal securities laws.
On Jan. 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court
appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff.
The amended complaint also includes the company's Vice President
of Research and Development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant
and was filed March 4, 2005.
The consolidated case is Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-00886 (D. Ariz.).
Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that between October 2003
and February 2004, the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding our Zicam Cold Remedy products,
including failing to adequately disclose to the public the
details of allegations that its products caused damage to the
sense of smell and of certain of the product liability lawsuits.
The company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit and, on
March 8, 2006, the company received an Order dated Dec. 15, 2005
granting the motion to dismiss the case, without prejudice.
On April 3, 2006, the plaintiff appealed the Order to the U.S.
District Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, and the parties made
oral arguments to the Ninth Circuit Court on June 9, 2009.
On Oct. 28, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court issued its opinion.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the U.S. District
Court, District of Arizona, which had dismissed the case.
The case will now proceed in the District Court unless the
Company determines to seek a review of the Ninth Circuit's
decision.
The company is currently evaluating its options.
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better. Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand. The company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-
Symptom relief, and other cough/cold. In addition, the company
had sold products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.
Its Zicam products are marketed in the cough and cold market
category. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal
2009), the company's top 15 customers accounted for more than 80%
of its net sales and three customers each accounted for more than
10% of the Company's net sales. In May 2008, the company formed
Zicam Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam products in
Canada.
MDL 1486: Subject to Appeal, Rust Anticipates Dec. Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entorian Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ: ENTND) disclosed this week
that it is a claimant in the class action antitrust litigation
entitled In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1486; Master Docket No: M-02-1486 (N.D.
Calif.) (Hamilton, J.).
Pursuant to terms of the settlement, claimants who purchased DRAM
from April 1, 1999, through June 30, 2002, were able to make
claims for recovery, based on evaluation and approval by the
Court, handled through Rust Consulting, the claims administrator.
Entorian purchased DRAM in this time period and submitted a claim
with the claims administrator. On October 28, 2009, the judge
approved the final distribution of funds pursuant to this
settlement.
Based on the approved settlement, the claims administrator
informed Entorian that it is scheduled to receive approximately
$7.5 million, with the payment to be made in December 2009.
However, any distribution is subject to a 30-day appeal period,
which terminates on November 27, 2009.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 30, 2006, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
scheduled a fairness hearing Nov. 1, 2006, to consider the
settlement.
The hearing will be held before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, in
Courtroom 3, on the 16th Floor of the U.S. District Courthouse,
at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.
Case Background
The case is on behalf of all persons or entities that directly
purchased DRAM in the U.S. from April 1, 1999, to June 30, 2002,
from these manufacturers or their subsidiaries:
-- Micron Technology, Inc.,
-- Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.,
-- Crucial Technology, Inc.,
-- Infineon Technologies AG,
-- Infineon Technologies North America Corp.,
-- Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.,
-- Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc.,
-- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
-- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
-- Mosel-Vitelic Technology Corp.,
-- Mosel-Vitelic Corp. (USA),
-- Nanya Technology Corp.,
-- Nanya Technology Corp. USA,
-- Winbond Electronics Corp.,
-- Winbond Electronics Corp. America,
-- Elpida Memory, Inc.,
-- Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., and
-- NEC Electronics America, Inc.
The plaintiffs are: Onshore, Inc., Internet Integration, Inc.,
Kevin Irwin d/b/a as Kevin's Computer and Photo, PC Doctor,
Inc., Advanced Technology, Inc., Network Business Solutions,
Inc., JEM Electronics Distributors, Inc., Daniel Clement, Web
Ideals, LLC, and 5207, Inc.
The lawsuit alleges that, beginning at least as early as
April 1, 1999, and continuing to June 30, 2002, the defendants
engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize the prices of DRAM in the U.S. and/or to allocate among
themselves, major customers and accounts in violation of the
Sherman Act, Title 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1. Plaintiffs allege that, as
a result of the unlawful conspiracy, they and other members of
the Class paid more for DRAM than they would have paid absent the
alleged conspiracy.
The defendants deny all of plaintiffs' allegations and have
asserted numerous affirmative defenses. Defendants Infineon
Technologies AG, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Hynix
Semiconductor, Inc., and certain of their employees have pleaded
guilty to criminal violations of the federal antitrust laws.
For more information, contact:
(1) DRAM Antitrust Litigation
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 24657
West Palm Beach, FL 33416
Phone: (866) 483-9938
http://www.DramAntitrustSettlement.com/
(2) Guido Saveri, Esq.
R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
Saveri & Saveri, Inc.
111 Pine Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 217-6810
(3) Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
(4) Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4600
MDL 1554: Mock Trial Result Doesn't Affect $586M IPO Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge in Manhattan
refused to withdraw her approval of a $586 million settlement of
securities fraud class actions over technology companies that
went public in the late 1990s. U.S. District Judge Shira
Scheindlin said the settlement was still reasonable and fair,
despite class counsel's claim that the amount was "deficient"
compared to the results of a mock trial.
A copy of Judge Scheindlin's Memorandum Opinion and Order in In
re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1554;
Master Docket No. 21-MC-92 (S.D.N.Y.), dated Nov. 4, 2009, is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/10/IPO%20ruling.pdf
"While mock trials can be instructive in assessing the strengths
and weaknesses of a case, they are, by no means, entitled to a
presumption of correctness. The settlement amount [is]
reasonable," Judge Scheindlin says, "and the alleged mock trial
results do not change that conclusion."
Previous coverage of Judge Scheindlin's approval of the IPO
Litigation settlement appeared in the Class Action Reporter on
October 8 and 12, 2009.
SANDISK CORP: Hearing in Antitrust Suit Continued to December 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
set the hearing and further case management conference for
Dec. 1, 2009, in the consolidated class-action suit entitled "In
re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086,"
which named SanDisk Corp. as a defendant, according to SanDisk's
Nov.5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2009.
Between Aug. 31, 2007 and Dec. 14, 2007, the company (along with
a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was
sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, in eight purported class action complaints.
On Feb. 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated
into two complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one
on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the Northern District of
California in a purported class action captioned In re Flash
Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086.
Plaintiffs allege the company and a number of other manufacturers
of flash memory products conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in violation of state
and federal laws.
The lawsuits purport to be on behalf of purchasers of flash
memory between Jan. 1, 1999 through the present.
The lawsuits seek an injunction, damages, restitution, fees,
costs, and disgorgement of profits.
On April 8, 2008, the company, along with its co-defendants,
filed motions to dismiss the direct purchaser and indirect
purchaser complaints. Also, the company, along with co-
defendants, filed a motion for a protective order to stay
discovery.
On April 22, 2008, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed oppositions to the dismissal motions.
The company's, along with co-defendants', reply to the
oppositions was filed on May 13, 2008. The court took the
motions to dismiss and the motion for a protective order under
submission on June 3, 2008.
On May 20, 2009, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated direct purchaser complaint and denied (with
limited exceptions for certain state law claims) defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated indirect purchaser complaint.
Class certification discovery and briefing was recently
completed, with a hearing and further case management conference
set for Dec. 1, 2009.
The suit is In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
C07-0086 (N.D. Calif.) (Armstrong, J.).
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
Finkelstein Thompson LLP
100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-398-8700
Fax: 415-398-8704
E-mail: cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com
- and -
C. Donald Amamgbo, Esq.
Amamgbo & Associates, APC
7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900
Oakland, CA 94621
Phone: 510-615-6000
Fax: 510-615-6024
E-mail: Donald@Amamgbolaw.com
- and -
Robert M. Bramson, Esq.
Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 925-945-0200
Fax: 925-945-8792
E-mail: rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com
Representing the company is:
Amy Elise Keating, Esq.
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-393-2000 x2262
Fax: 415-393-2286
E-mail: amy.keating@bingham.com
SPOKANE COUNTY: $492,000 Settlement of Jail Booking Fee Case
------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE BOOKED INTO THE
SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL FROM MAY 5, 2004 TO DECEMBER 20, 2006, WHO
WERE CHARGED A BOOKING FEE AT THE TIME OF BOOKING AND WHO PAID
MONEY TOWARDS THAT BOOKING FEE. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
PENDING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.
There is a proposed Settlement for a class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington entitled Shawn Huss v. Spokane County, Case No.
CV-05-180-FVS. This litigation alleges that Spokane County
Jail's booking fee policy of charging inmates a booking fee at
the time they are arrested and booked into Jail, without any type
of pre-deprivation hearing, is a violation of their
constitutional due process rights. The Defendant Spokane County
denies all allegations, and is settling this action to avoid the
burden and uncertainty of further litigation.
Under the proposed Settlement, the Class of persons defined in
bolded capital letters above may be eligible to participate in a
settlement of $491,668.00, which will also cover any Incentive
Awards to the Named Plaintiff, and any Plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees, expenses, and other costs that the Court may award.
A hearing will be held on March 16, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Fred Van Sickle, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Washington, located at 920 West Riverside
Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201, to decide whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved.
The following attorneys are Class Counsel for the Class:
Breean Lawrence Beggs, Esq.
Jeffry Keith Finer, Esq.
Center for Justice
35 West Main Street, Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
If you have any questions, you are entitled to consult with Class
Counsel by writing to them at the address above or by calling the
following, toll-free number 1-800-547-2519. Please note: In
order to receive a Class Benefit, each Class Member must complete
and submit a Claim Form. The deadline to mail your Claim Form is
December 16, 2009. You may obtain a copy of the Official Notice
and Claim Form, and Settlement Agreement by contacting counsel at
the telephone number listed above, or you may download a copy at
http://www.pattersonbuchanan.com/
HOW TO OBJECT OR OPT-OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT
Any objections to the settlement must comply with the filing and
service requirements outlined in the Official Notice referred to
above, and must be submitted by December 16, 2009. If you choose
to opt-out of the settlement, you will not be bound by the
settlement of the Litigation. If you opt-out, however, you will
not be eligible to receive the Class Benefit.
NO INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT
UNITED STATES: Legal Immigrants to Get Citizenship in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito and Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports
that after years of delay, hundreds of legal immigrants in
Southern California moved a step closer to U.S. citizenship after
reaching a settlement that set a six-month deadline for the
government to decide on their applications.
The class action settlement in Kolhatkar, et al. v. Arellano, et
al, Case No. 07-cv-01394 (C.S. Calif.) (Carter, J.), will affect
only applicants in parts of Southern California. The Bush
administration policy -- never officially announced --
essentially stopped naturalization for tens of thousands of legal
immigrants.
One political asylee from El Salvador who sought U.S. citizenship
says immigration officials seized his green card years ago, told
him, "They're not accepting anything; it's the new policy," and
left him in limbo, with no documents to prove his legal status.
The asylee was thrown in jail and had to pay bail and spend
$10,000 on attorney's fees in a case that dragged on for years.
After the government's repeated requests for continuances, when
the case finally reached a judge it was dismissed because the man
had never been charged with anything, according to the man's
attorney.
Three Southern California-based immigrants' rights groups and a
private law office -- the National Immigration Law Center, the
ACLU of Southern California, the Asian Pacific American Legal
Center and Munger, Tolles & Olson -- sued the federal government
in 2007 to try to clear the black hole into which tens of
thousands of immigrants had been tossed.
After Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration effectively stopped
processing applications for adjustment of status. Legal
immigrants' applications were put on hold, ostensibly for "FBI
name checks," but the FBI was busy elsewhere. The U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services instituted the "name checks"
in 2002.
The settlement requires the USCIS to adjudicate hundreds of
applications from Los Angeles, Santa Ana and San Bernardino areas
within six months, and show data to the civil rights group to
prove that the black hole is not turned on again.
The Plaintiffs' law firms' news release announcing the victory is
available at http://is.gd/4Sx3Wand The Los Angeles Times'
coverage of the settlement is available at http://is.gd/4Sx5H
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark B. Helm, Esq.
Jacob S. Kreilkamp, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone: 213-683-9187
- and -
Linton Joaquin, Esq.
Nora A. Preciado, Esq.
Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: 213-639-3900
- and -
Ranjana Nataranjan, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1616 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Telephone: 213-977-9500
- and -
Mark D Rosenbaum, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1313 West Eighth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213-977-9500
- and -
Yungsuhn Park, Esq.
Julie A. Su, Esq.
Mark Koji Yoshida, Esq.
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER
1145 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-977-7500
The Government is represented by:
Samuel P. Go, Esq.
Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: 202-353-9923
- and -
Ali Manuchehry, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
450 5th Street NW, Room 6415
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: 202-305-7109
- and -
Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ben Franklin Station
PO Box 878
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: 202-616-9752
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: WrinkleFree Eyes & Retinol Claims Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that University Medical
Pharmaceuticals falsely advertises that its "WrinkleFree Eyes,"
"Retinol" and associated products are "clinically proven" and "as
good as Botox," a class action claims in San Diego Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in King-Scott v. University Medical
Pharmaceuticals Corp., Case No. 09-cv-02512 (S.D. Calif.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/10/OTCDrugs.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: 602-274-1100
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-756-6978
VERISIGN INC: Stock Option Grants Suit Still Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc. still faces a purported class-action lawsuit in
California that alleges false representations and disclosure
failures regarding certain historical stock option grants.
On May 15, 2007, the putative class action suit -- "Mykityshyn
v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign, Inc." -- was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County,
naming the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.
The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned
VeriSign common stock between April 3, 2002, and Aug. 9, 2006.
The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and
2006 Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the
1998 Option Plan. It also seeks to enjoin the defendants from
granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any
currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006
Option Plans. It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, costs and attorneys fees.
Defendants' collective pleading challenges to the putative
consolidated class action complaint were granted with leave to
amend in August 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009).
By stipulation and Court order, plaintiff's obligation to file
an amended consolidated class action complaint has been
continued pending informal efforts by the parties to resolve the
action.
No further updates were reported in the company's Nov.6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is a provider of
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.
WATERS CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waters Corp.'s motion to dismiss a purported federal securities
class action remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.
In November 2008, the City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police &
Fire Retirement System filed a purported federal securities class
action against the company, Douglas Berthiaume and John Ornell.
In January 2009, Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT filed a motion
to be appointed as lead plaintiff, which was granted.
In April 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleges
that between July 24, 2007 and Jan. 22, 2008, the company
misrepresented or omitted material information about its
projected annual revenues and earnings, its projected effective
annual tax rate, and the level of business activity in Japan.
The action is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who
purchased common stock of the company between July 24, 2007 and
Jan. 22, 2008.
The amended complaint seeks to recover under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
The company, Mr. Berthiaume and Mr. Ornell have filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, which lead plaintiff has opposed.
The court has not yet indicated if it will hold oral argument on
the pending motion.
No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2009.
Waters Corp. -- http://www.waters.com/-- is an analytical
instrument manufacturer. Through its Waters Division, Waters
designs, manufactures, sells and services high-performance liquid
chromatography, ultra performance liquid chromatography, referred
to as liquid chromatography, and mass spectrometry instrument
systems and support products, including chromatography columns
and other consumable products. The company operates in two
business segments: Waters Division and TA Division. Through its
TA division, Waters designs, manufactures sells and services
thermal analysis and rheometry and calorimetry instruments. The
company is also a developer and supplier of software-based
products that interface with the company's instruments, as well
as other instrument manufacturers instruments. In July 2008, the
Company completed the purchase of the net assets of VTI
Corporation. In December 2008, Waters Corporation completed the
purchase of the net assets of Analytical Products Group, Inc.
New Securities Fraud Cases
LIMITED BRANDS: Securities Fraud Complaint Filed in S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Limited Brands inflated its
stock price through false and misleading statements about new
technology for its Victoria's Secret stores, shareholders claim
in Columbus, Ohio, Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension Fund v. Limited Brands,
Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-1008 (S.D. Ohio.) (Sargus, J.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/10/SCALtd.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq.
Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1533 Lake Shore Drive
Columbus, OH 43204
Telephone: 614-488-0400
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631-367-7100
- and -
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
Patrick J. Sheenan, Esq.
WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 212-447-7070
- and -
Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq.
CAVANAUGH & O'HARA
407 East Adams Street
Springfield, IL 62701
Telephone: 217-544-9894
STEC INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Stec Inc. sold $321 million
in shares and Stec execs dumped their own shares at prices
inflated by false and misleading statements, and JP Morgan
Securities, Deutsche Bank Securities, Barclays Capital, and
Oppenheimer & Co. helped to do it, shareholders claim in Los
Angeles Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Sakhai v. Stec, et al., Case No. 09-
01306 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/09/SCAStec.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim Miller, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
12 E. 41st St., 12th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: 212-696-3730
- and -
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: 504-455-1400
- and -
William J. Doyle, II, Esq.
John Lowther, Esq.
DOYLE LOWTHER LLC
9466 Black Mountain Rd., Suite 210
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: 619-573-1700
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual to Pay Armstrong Trust $300 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Troubled Company Reporter reported this week that Reorganized
Armstrong World Industries, Inc., and the Armstrong World
Industries, Inc., Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust ask
the Honorable Judith K. Fitzgerald in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware and the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to approve a settlement agreement with Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company under which the insurer agrees to pay
the Asbestos Trust $300 million upon approval of the settlement
agreement plus an additional $115 million five to seven years
from now if the amount of Asbestos Claims resolved by the Trust
totals at least $3.4 billion.
This settlement resolves all coverage disputes asserted in
Armstrong v. Liberty Mutual, Case No. 02-cv-04360 (E.D. Pa.);
Armstrong v. Liberty Mutual, Case No. 04-cv-00499 (E.D. Pa.);
and Biondi (formerly Baar), et al. v. Liberty Mutual, Case No.
08 L 006532 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.).
In exchange for these cash payments, Liberty Mutual will receive
all of the protections of the Asbestos PI Permanent Channeling
Injunction as a PI Protected Party under Armstrong's confirmed
chapter 11 plan and 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(g).
The Armstrong Asbestos Trust is represented by:
Kevin E. Irwin, Esq.
Sue A. Erhart, Esq.
Jennifer J. Morales, Esq.
KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL
One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Liberty Mutual is represented by:
A. Hugh Scott, Esq.
Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP
Two International Plaza
Boston, MA 02110
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Still Involved in Aaron Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. is still party to an asbestos-related
action styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Company et
al. Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones County, Miss.
This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course
of their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.
The complaints name as defendants certain of TODCO's subsidiaries
and certain subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent to whom TODCO
may owe indemnity. Other defendants are unaffiliated defendant
companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured
drilling-related products containing asbestos that are the
subject of the complaints. The number of unaffiliated defendant
companies involved in each complaint ranges from about 20 to 70.
The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors
used asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling
operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling
structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and assert
claims based on negligence and strict liability, and claims
authorized under the Jones Act. The plaintiffs seek awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
All of these cases were assigned to a special master who has
approved a form of questionnaire to be completed by plaintiffs so
that claims made would be properly served against specific
defendants. As of the date of this report, about 700
questionnaires were returned and the remaining plaintiffs, who
did not submit a questionnaire reply, have had their suits
dismissed without prejudice.
Of the respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by
TODCO and its former parent which could lead to claims against
either company, even though many of these plaintiffs did not
state in their questionnaire answers that the employment actually
involved exposure to asbestos.
After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming only those defendants against whom they had a direct claim
as identified in the questionnaire answers. Defendants not
identified in the amended complaints were dismissed from the
plaintiffs' litigation.
To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as a defendant in their
amended complaints.
It is possible that some of the plaintiffs who have filed amended
complaints and have not named TODCO as a defendant may attempt to
add TODCO as a defendant in the future when case discovery begins
and greater attention is given to each individual plaintiff's
employment background. The Company continues to monitor a small
group of these other cases.
The Company has not determined which entity would be responsible
for those claims under the Master Separation Agreement between
TODCO and its former parent.
Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water drilling and
marine services to the oil and natural gas exploration and
production industry in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and international
locations. The Company is based in Houston.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 180 Cases Still Pending v. Pepco in Md. Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2009, there are
about 180 cases still pending against its subsidiary Potomac
Electric Power Company (Pepco) in the State Courts of Maryland.
In 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the
state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City
and Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing, consolidated
proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case."
Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases
on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the
plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a
safe work environment for employees or its contractors, who
allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's
property.
Initially, a total of 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco to
their complaints. While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it
appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory
damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from each defendant.
Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits
have been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases
have been dismissed.
As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and
meetings and one motion for summary judgment, Pepco has had about
400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice, either
voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court.
Of the 180 cases as of Sept. 30, 2009, about 90 cases were filed
after Dec. 19, 2000, and were tendered to Mirant Corporation for
defense and indemnification under the terms of the Asset Purchase
and Sale Agreement between Pepco and Mirant under which Pepco
sold its generation assets to Mirant in 2000.
The aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining
suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about US$360
million.
Pepco Holdings, Inc. distributes electricity and natural gas
through its Potomac Electric Power, Delmarva Power & Light, and
Atlantic City Electric utilities to more than 1.9 million
customers in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.
The Company is based in Washington, D.C.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCC Affiliates Still Involved in Asarco Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation's direct and indirect parent
corporations, including Americas Mining Corporation (AMC) and
Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de C.V., have from time to time been named
parties in various litigations (including asbestos-related)
involving Asarco.
In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim
alleging fraudulent conveyance in connection with AMC's then-
proposed purchase of the Company from a subsidiary of Asarco.
That action was settled under a Consent Decree dated Feb. 2,
2003. In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in the Company
from Asarco.
In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre S.A. de
C.V. and other parties, not including the Company, were named in
a lawsuit filed in New York State court in connection with
alleged asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC's
purchase of SCC from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent
conveyance. The lawsuit filed in New York State court was stayed
as a result of the August 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by
Asarco.
On Nov. 16, 2007, this lawsuit after being removed to federal
court was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas in Brownsville, Tex., for resolution in
conjunction with a new lawsuit filed by Asarco's creditors.
On Feb. 2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco on behalf of
Asarco's creditors, alleging many of the matters previously
claimed in the New York State lawsuit, including that AMC's
purchase of SCC from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent
conveyance. In June 2008 the lawsuit was concluded in
Brownsville, Tex.
The constructive fraudulent conveyance claim was dismissed.
However, the actual fraud and the aiding and abetting the breach
of fiduciary duties counts were favorable to plaintiffs.
On April 15, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas entered a judgment awarding Asarco certain
shares of the Company, which represents about 30.6 percent of the
Company's current outstanding common shares, and an amount equal
to the dividends paid on those shares of common stock of the
Company since the date of their acquisition by AMC, plus
interest.
Grupo Mexico announced that AMC is appealing that judgment and
that the enforcement of the judgment has been stayed pending the
appeal.
In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy
petitions in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. In
July 2005, the unionized workers of Asarco commenced a work
stoppage.
In August 2005, Asarco filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex. Asarco's bankruptcy case
is being joined with the bankruptcy cases of its subsidiaries.
Asarco's bankruptcy could result in additional claims being filed
against Grupo Mexico and its subsidiaries, including the Company,
Minera Mexico or its subsidiaries.
Southern Copper Corporation produces and sells copper. Other by-
products are recovered like molybdenum, zinc, silver, lead and
gold, which the Company also produces and sells. The Company is
based in Phoenix.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Facing 50T Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
faced 50,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims as of Sept. 30,
2009, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Crown Cork still faced 50,000 outstanding asbestos claims during
the six months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
14, 2009)
Crown Cork is one of many defendants in lawsuits filed throughout
the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963. About 90 days after the stock purchase,
this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged
into Crown Cork.
Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has
no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.
During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, Crown Cork received
about 2,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about 2,000 claims
for a total of US$10 million.
The outstanding claims at Sept. 30, 2009 exclude 33,000 pending
claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were,
maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos. The outstanding
claims also exclude about 19,000 inactive claims.
As of Sept. 30, 2009, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$185
million, including US$133 million for unasserted claims and US$1
million for committed settlements that will be paid over time.
Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer packaging. Steel and
aluminum food and beverage cans and related packaging are the
Company's primary source of income. Products also include aerosol
cans, metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as specialty
packaging like decorative novelty containers and industrial paint
cans. The Company is based in Philadelphia.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Facing Lawsuits in Tex. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to be party to asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas
courts.
In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies
like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had
been involved with asbestos.
The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending
claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross
value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total adjusted value of its predecessor's assets.
In May 2006, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld a grant
of summary judgment to Crown Cork and upheld the state
constitutionality of the statute (Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork
& Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas). The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by
the plaintiff to the Texas Supreme Court.
A favorable ruling for summary judgment in an asbestos case
pending against Crown Cork in the district court of Travis
County, Texas (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as Representative of
the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown Cork & Seal
Company, Inc., No. 03-04-00518-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Third
District, at Austin) has been reversed on appeal on state
constitutional grounds due to retroactive application of the
statute.
Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer packaging. Steel and
aluminum food and beverage cans and related packaging are the
Company's primary source of income. Products also include aerosol
cans, metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as specialty
packaging like decorative novelty containers and industrial paint
cans. The Company is based in Philadelphia.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Facing Lawsuits in Pa. Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
continues to be party to asbestos-related lawsuits in
Pennsylvania courts.
In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's
asset value adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value. In
November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S
Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application.
On Feb. 6, 2009, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, due
to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas' dismissal of three cases against Crown Cork raising
federal and state constitutional challenges to the amended
statute (Stea v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et. al, No. 2956 EDA
2006).
The plaintiff has requested that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
accept the appeal of this decision. The Company cautions that the
limitations of the statute, as amended, are subject to litigation
and may not be upheld.
Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer packaging. Steel and
aluminum food and beverage cans and related packaging are the
Company's primary source of income. Products also include aerosol
cans, metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as specialty
packaging like decorative novelty containers and industrial paint
cans. The Company is based in Philadelphia.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 75,357 Open Claims Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation faced 75,357 unresolved asbestos claims
at Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 82,823 claims at Sept. 30, 2008,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company faced 74,957 unresolved asbestos claims at June 30,
2009, compared with 88,694 claims at June 30, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 14, 2009)
During the period ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company noted 6,379
claims filed and 6,728 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. The Company recorded 24,328 claims against both the
Company and former subsidiary Amchem Products, Inc. and 51,029
individual claims.
During the period ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company noted 8,357
claims filed and 15,856 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. The Company recorded 26,184 claims against both the
Company and Amchem and 56,639 individual claims.
The Company is and has been involved in asbestos-related suits
filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades.
These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both
actual and punitive damages.
The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on Company premises, and the Company's
responsibility for asbestos suits filed against Amchem.
A subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, Union Carbide
Corporation produces chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which
are converted into the most widely used plastics resins:
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze. The Company is based in Houston.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCC Records $117M Costs for Defense, Resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded defense and resolution costs
totaling US$117 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2009, compared with US$127 million during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2008.
During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, defense costs were
US$40 million and resolution costs were US$77 million. During the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, defense costs were US$37
million and resolution costs were US$90 million.
The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of
insurance, was US$20 million in the third quarter of 2009 (US$14
million in the third quarter of 2008) and US$40 million in the
first nine months of 2009 (US$30 million in the first nine months
of 2008).
A subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, Union Carbide
Corporation produces chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which
are converted into the most widely used plastics resins:
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze. The Company is based in Houston.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCC Cites $252M Defense, Resolution Receivables
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos receivables for defense and
resolution costs were US$252 million at Sept. 30, 2009, compared
with US$272 at Sept. 30, 2008.
At Sept. 30, 2009, the receivables for defense costs were US$21
million and the receivables for resolution costs were US$231
million. At Sept. 30, 2008, the receivables for defense costs
were US$28 million and the receivables for resolution costs were
US$244 million.
At Dec. 31, 2002, the Company increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to US$1.35
billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability
coverage.
The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was
determined after a thorough review of applicable insurance
policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which the Company
and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties, as well
as other insurance settlements, with due consideration given to
applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking
into account the solvency and historical payment experience of
various insurance carriers.
The Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are
designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of
the Company's insurance policies and to resolve issues that the
insurance carriers may raise.
The Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the
asbestos liability was US$403 million at Sept. 30, 2009 and Dec.
31, 2008.
At Sept. 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have
agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance
coverage.
A subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, Union Carbide
Corporation produces chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which
are converted into the most widely used plastics resins:
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze. The Company is based in Houston.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Still Facing N.Y. Coverage Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related comprehensive
insurance coverage is still continuing in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York.
In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for
various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely
collection of insurance proceeds.
This lawsuit was filed against insurers that are not signatories
to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements
in place with the Company regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution
and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues
that the insurance carriers may raise.
Although the lawsuit is continuing, through the end of the third
quarter of 2009, the Company had reached settlements with several
of the carriers involved in this litigation.
A subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, Union Carbide
Corporation produces chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which
are converted into the most widely used plastics resins:
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze. The Company is based in Houston.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Still Awaits Decision on A.P. Green Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation and other insurers still await the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on the confirmation of
A.P. Green's Plan of Reorganization.
On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved asbestos-
related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P. Green
Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow-Liptak Corporation.
Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court
approval on Aug. 18, 2003.
The debtor's plan of reorganization includes an injunction to
protect the Company from any future claims. The bankruptcy court
issued an opinion on Sept. 24, 2007 recommending confirmation of
that plan.
On July 25, 2008, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy
Court's ruling.
Several insurers have appealed that ruling to the Appeals Court.
That appeal was argued on May 21, 2009.
CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial coverage, with such
standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance
including professional liability for doctors, lawyers, and
architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. The Company
is based in Chicago.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Still Involved in Keasbey Case in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation continues to be involved in insurance
coverage litigation in New York State Court, filed in 2003, with
a defendant class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos
bodily injury claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey
Company.
The case is styled Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. of
Wausau et al., No. 601037/03 (N.Y. County).
Keasbey, currently a dissolved corporation, was a seller and
installer of asbestos-containing insulation products in New York
and New Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury
claims against Keasbey. However, under New York court rules,
asbestos claims are not cognizable unless they meet certain
minimum medical impairment standards.
Since 2002, when these court rules were adopted, a small portion
of those claims have met medical impairment criteria under New
York court rules and as to the remaining claims, Keasbey's
involvement at a number of work sites is a highly contested
issue.
The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and
excess policies for 1971-1978. The Company has paid an amount
substantially equal to the policies' aggregate limits for
products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA
policies.
Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage
under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate
limits. In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek
declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy
provisions.
On Dec. 30, 2008, a New York appellate court entered a unanimous
decision in favor of the Company on multiple alternative grounds
including findings that claims arising out of Keasbey's asbestos
insulating activities are included within the products
hazard/completed operations coverage, which has been exhausted;
and that the defendant claimant class is subject to the
affirmative defenses that the Company may have had against
Keasbey, barring all coverage claims.
The New York Court of Appeals has denied leave for a further
appeal and, subject to a motion to re-argue, the Dec. 30, 2008
ruling in favor of the Company is final.
CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial coverage, with such
standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance
including professional liability for doctors, lawyers, and
architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. The Company
is based in Chicago.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Involved in Burns & Roe's Coverage Disputes
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation has insurance coverage disputes related
to asbestos bodily injury claims against a bankrupt insured,
Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.
The Company allegedly provided primary liability coverage to
Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain
project-specific policies from 1964-1970.
In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement in the
Burns & Roe bankruptcy proceeding, which provides that claims
allegedly covered by CNA policies will be adjudicated in the tort
system, with any coverage disputes related to those claims to be
decided in coverage litigation.
That agreement was included in the Burns & Roe Bankruptcy Plan
which became final on June 15, 2009 and was not appealed.
CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial coverage, with such
standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance
including professional liability for doctors, lawyers, and
architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. The Company
is based in Chicago.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Hearing to Continue through January 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that the second phase of W. R.
Grace & Co.'s Plan of Reorganization confirmation hearing began
in September 2009 and will continue through January 2010.
On March 22, 2002, a direct action was filed in Montana by eight
individual plaintiffs (all employees of W. R. Grace and their
spouses against the Company, Maryland Casualty and the State of
Montana.
The case is styled Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al.,
First Judicial District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Mont.
This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
otherwise protect W. R. Grace employees from the dangers of
asbestos at a W. R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby,
Mont. The Montana direct action is currently stayed because of W.
R. Grace's pending bankruptcy.
On April 7, 2008, W. R. Grace announced a settlement in principle
with the asbestos personal injury claimants committee subject to
confirmation of a plan of reorganization by the bankruptcy court.
The confirmation hearing is held in two phases. The first phase
was held in June 2009.
The settlement in principle with the asbestos claimants has no
present impact on the stay currently imposed on the Montana
direct action and with respect to those claims; numerous factual
and legal issues remain to be resolved that are critical to the
final result.
CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial coverage, with such
standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance
including professional liability for doctors, lawyers, and
architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. The Company
is based in Chicago.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l. Has $1.091B Net Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAN Financial Corporation's net asbestos reserves were US$1.091
billion as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$1.202 billion as
of Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's gross asbestos reserves were US$1.912 billion as of
Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$2.112 billion as of Dec. 31,
2008.
There was no asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment
expense reserve development recorded for the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2009.
The Company recorded US$18 million of unfavorable asbestos-
related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve
development for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.
The Company paid asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance
recoveries, of US$111 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2009 and US$125 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.
CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial coverage, with such
standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance
including professional liability for doctors, lawyers, and
architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. The Company
is based in Chicago.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l. Has 1,312 Policyholders at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation recorded 1,312 asbestos policyholders
as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 1,302 policyholders as of
Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2009.
In 1985, 47 asbestos producers and their insurers, including The
Continental Insurance Company (CIC), executed the Wellington
Agreement. The agreement was intended to resolve all issues and
litigation related to coverage for asbestos exposures.
Under this agreement, signatory insurers committed scheduled
policy limits and made the limits available to pay asbestos
claims based upon coverage blocks designated by the policyholders
in 1985, subject to extension by policyholders. CIC was a
signatory insurer to the Wellington Agreement.
The Company has also used coverage in place agreements to resolve
large asbestos exposures. Coverage in place agreements are
typically agreements with Company policyholders identifying the
policies and the terms for payment of asbestos related
liabilities.
The Company defines a large account as an active account with
more than US$100,000 of cumulative paid losses. Small accounts
are defined as active accounts with US$100,000 or less of
cumulative paid losses.
CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial coverage, with such
standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and
professional liability, and other products for businesses and
institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance
including professional liability for doctors, lawyers, and
architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. The Company
is based in Chicago.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Suits Filed on Oct. 19-23 in Madison County
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Oct. 19, 2009 through Oct. 23, 2009, about 15
new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.
These cases are:
-- (Case No. 09-L1138) Ann M. Bailey of Illinois claims her
deceased husband, Robert E. Bailey, developed lung cancer
after his work with the Steamfitters Local 429. Elizabeth V.
Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will
represent Mrs. Bailey.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1123) Judith Bonfield of Indiana, a clerk,
secretary, travel agent and administrative assistant, claims
mesothelioma. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
represent Ms. Bonfield.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1109) Shirley Foley claims she should be
entitled to file a lawsuit on behalf of her deceased husband,
C.L. Foley, who had a right to pursue an asbestos claim. G.
Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of Simmons,
Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
will represent Mrs. Foley.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1111) Ellen and James Girt of Oregon claim
Mrs. Girt developed mesothelioma after her work as a
bookkeeper. Mrs. Girt was also exposed to asbestos fibers
through her spouse, who worked as a logger, laborer, pilot
and farmer. Amy E. Garrett, Esq., and W. Brent Copple, Esq.,
of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
Alton, Ill., will represent the Girts.
-- Samantha Gordon claims the deceased Ralph T. Mallory Jr.
developed mesothelioma after his work as a pipefitter and
welder in the U.S. Navy, as a power and construction worker,
as a construction superintendent at Voss International, as a
construction superintendent for Coke Battery and as a
construction worker and plumber. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of
Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
represent Ms. Gordon.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1122) Edmundo Gutierrez of California, a
clerk, assembler and parts and shipping clerk, claims
mesothelioma. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., and Christopher J.
Levy, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Gutierrez.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1132) Densic Hayes Jr. of Louisiana claims his
deceased father, Densic Hayes Sr., developed mesothelioma
after his work as a laborer, cook and dietician. Christopher
R. Guinn, Esq., and John P. Wagner, Esq., of Simmons,
Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
will represent Mr. Hayes Jr.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1137) Floyd Hicks Jr. and Earline Hicks of
Kentucky claim Mr. Hicks developed lung cancer after his work
as a laborer for General Motors. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq.,
and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli
and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the
Hickses.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1124) Jeanette Moorman of Oregon, claims her
deceased husband, Wilfred Moorman, developed mesothelioma
after his work as a concrete worker, pipefitter, welder and
coal carrier. Myles L. Epperson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd of East Alton, Ill., will
represent Mrs. Moorman.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1110) Eddie Patterson of Illinois, a painter
at Chrysler, a helper at Gray Iron Foundry, an assembly line
worker at J.I. Case, a forklift driver and a home remodeler,
claims lung cancer. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian,
Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill.,
will represent Mr. Patterson.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1118) Charles E. Schmidt of Maryland alleges
Lurecia M. Schmidt died from mesothelioma after working as a
service worker at the University of Miami. Richard L. Saville
Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Alton, Ill., will
represent Mr. Schmidt.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1116) Raymond Strickland of Mississippi claims
his deceased wife, Lillian Strickland, developed mesothelioma
after she was exposed to asbestos fibers through her husband,
who worked as an insulator. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J.
Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of Simmons,
Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
will represent Mr. Strickland.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1136) Elaine Taylor-Tyler claims her deceased
father, Dave Tyler, developed lung cancer after his work
around asbestos fibers. Amy E. Garrett, Esq., and W. Brent
Copple, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Taylor-
Tyler.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1117) Krystyna Wolek of Illinois claims her
deceased uncle, Frank Balwierz, developed mesothelioma after
his work as a machinist. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill
Price, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Wolek.
-- (Case No. 09-L-1133) Lois Yates of Virginia claims her
deceased husband, Johnny Yates, Sr., developed mesothelioma
after his work as a coal shooter, penner operator, gas
attendant and mechanic. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., and John
P. Wagner, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Yates.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plummer's Case v. Foreign Firms Filed on Nov. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert and Nadine Plummer, on Nov. 2, 2009, filed a federal
asbestos lawsuit against T&N Limited and TAF International
Limited (by their agent, The Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust) in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of
Texas, The Southeast Texas Record reports.
The Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust is a Delaware
statutory trust, established under the terms of the Fourth
Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Federal-Mogul
Corporation and various affiliates on Dec. 27, 2007.
T&N is a subsidiary of Federal-Mogul Corporation and is a foreign
corporation formerly known as T&N PLC, Turner & Newell PLC and
Turner & Newell Limited.
TAF International is a United Kingdom subsidiary of T&N and is a
foreign corporation formerly known as Turners Asbestos Fibres
Limited and Raw Asbestos Distributors Limited.
Mr. Plummer says that while working for defendants, he inhaled
dangerous fibers that contained asbestos which were produced by
the defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to warn of the
dangers associated with their asbestos products and should have
taken measures to prevent or minimize Mr. Plummer's exposure.
Mr. Plummer said he believes the defendants consorted with other
representatives of the asbestos industry to cover up and minimize
the known dangers associated with asbestos containing products.
Further, Mr. Plummer claims the defendants were negligent for
failing to keep up with the latest literature about the dangerous
propensities of asbestos fibers.
The case is considered a "tag-along" case, which will be
transferred to the multi-district litigation pending in the
federal court in the Philadelphia Division of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
South Carolina attorney Badge Humphries, Esq., Joseph Rice, Esq.,
John A. Baden IV, Esq., and Brian Bevon, Esq., of the law firm
Motley Rice LLC represent the Plummers.
U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis will preside over Case No
6:09cv00497.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Woman's Action v. Hardie, Gov't. Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
An 83-year-old woman named Joan (surname withheld) filed an
asbestos lawsuit against the Queensland State Government and
James Hardie Industries N.V., claiming AUD406,500 in
compensation, The Courier Mail reports.
Joan, from Seven Hills, Queensland, Australia, was exposed to
asbestos dust and fibers from 1961 until 1984, according to civil
claim documents filed in the Supreme Court.
Joan's husband Roy worked as a fitter and welder at the Bulimba
power station and would return home with his blue overalls
colored white with asbestos dust.
Court papers stated that Joan often embraced her husband while he
was still wearing his work clothes. Before doing his laundry she
shook his overalls, exposing herself to asbestos.
Joan was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2009, diminishing her
life expectancy and her ability to undertake social or domestic
activities, the documents said. She suffers ongoing chest pain
and is receiving hospital treatment for the illness.
Joan is suing the State Government, Roy's employer, for failing
to clean his clothes within the workplace and failing to warn its
employees or their family of the risks associated with inhalation
of asbestos dust and fibers.
Joan also seeks damages from Amaca, formerly James Hardie, for
knowing the risk of injury from inhaling asbestos dust and fiber
but continuing to manufacture and supply the product.
Roy has not developed mesothelioma.
Turner Freeman Lawyers partner, Sean Ryan, who is representing
Joan, said the number of asbestos compensation cases before
Queensland courts would continue to rise, particularly with the
influx of retirees moving to the state.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Douglas Case v. Hardie Unit Settled on Nov. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos case filed by 74-year-old Angus Douglas against James
Hardie Industries N.V. subsidiary Amaca and Seltsam (formerly the
CSR subsidiary Wunderlich) was settled on Nov. 10, 2009 in the
Supreme Court.
Mr. Douglas, a carpenter from Seaford, Victoria, Australia, spent
16 years ripping out and replacing asbestos sheeting in home and
office renovations. He used an electric saw to cut sheeting to
fit, with a wet handkerchief his only protection against the
copious amount of dust generated.
On Nov. 10, 2009, a Supreme Court jury saw videotaped evidence
from Mr. Douglas, who said he was in great health and still doing
odd jobs "for pocket money" until February 2009 when a doctor
told him he had inoperable lung cancer and six months to live.
Mr. Douglas' van and tools were parked out the front of his
Seaford home when lawyers visited on Nov. 9, 2009 to examine him
as part of his case against Amaca and Seltsam.
In an opening address, Mr. Douglas' lawyer James Mighell, SC,
briefed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, said there was
"overwhelming evidence" that Mr. Douglas was exposed to asbestos
manufactured and sold by Amaca and Seltsam, who owed him a duty
of care.
As a smoker exposed to asbestos, Mr. Mighell said, Mr. Douglas'
risk of developing lung cancer was increased by up to threefold.
After Mr Douglas' evidence-in-chief was played to the court,
lawyers announced they had reached a settlement, and Justice Tony
Cavanough dismissed the jury.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Wins Appeal in Mahoney Injury Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. announced an appellate victory
relating to a US$20 million dollar asbestos cancer verdict,
according to a Baron & Budd press release dated Nov. 9, 2009.
The appeal upholds the jury's verdict and court's judgment in
this asbestos cancer lawsuit brought on behalf of mesothelioma
patient Joan Mahoney and husband Daniel Mahoney.
Baron & Budd attorneys John Langdoc, Esq., and Denyse Clancy,
Esq., who represented the Mahoneys, proved that Mrs. Mahoney's
mesothelioma was linked to her exposure to an asbestos-containing
joint compound manufactured by Georgia Pacific and that the
company knew beforehand that asbestos exposure caused disease.
Mrs. Mahoney, a San Francisco native, spent much of her career in
show business. Her singing career spanned 30 years and took her
around the world seven times on United Service Organizations
(USO) tours.
However, it was Mrs. Mahoney's work in the family home-remodeling
business that exposed her to an asbestos-containing joint
compound produced by Georgia Pacific. Together, Mrs. Mahoney and
her husband built and remodeled numerous houses in the 1970s,
1980s and 1990s.
In August 2006, Mrs. Mahoney was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
Several months before, Mr. Mahoney suffered a severe stroke that
left him paralyzed and unable to speak. Weakened by cancer and
chemotherapy, Mrs. Mahoney was unable to take care of her
husband, who required home nursing care.
The jury awarded Mrs. Mahoney and her husband US$20,050,000 and
apportioned 30 percent of the fault to Georgia Pacific, and the
remaining liability to Bondex, Kaiser Gypsum and Durabond joint
compound, and CertainTeed construction products.
After reducing the award to reflect Georgia Pacific's percentage
of fault, settlements made by other defendants prior to trial,
and a stipulated amount of medical damages, the court entered a
judgment of US$6,289,544. The appellate court upheld the full
verdict, finding it was "amply supported" by the evidence at
trial.
Mr. Langdoc said, "Georgia Pacific did not protect Mrs. Mahoney
or any others who used its joint compound, and I am pleased that
the appellate court agreed with the judge and jury that Georgia
Pacific must be held accountable."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Settlement Reached in Monterey Courthouse Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judges, attorneys and Monterey County Superior Court employees
who filed lawsuits reached a tentative settlement in a case
involving the remodeling of the Court building in Salinas,
Calif., The Californian reports.
Plaintiffs' attorney, Anne Keppner, Esq., said the settlement
terms are confidential, but all 190 people will be compensated.
The lawsuits were filed in 2006 and 2007. The plaintiffs sought
medical expenses and damages for lung diseases they say were
caused by asbestos exposure during 2005 and 2006 demolition work.
The lawsuits were combined into a single case and moved to Santa
Clara County earlier in 2009.
In late 2006 and early 2007, the two building contractors, Nova
Partners and Skanska USA Building, pleaded no contest to
misdemeanor charges of mishandling asbestos. The charges were
dismissed after both companies paid fees and Nova completed a
probation term.
Several other contractors continued the courthouse remodeling
work, which began in 2002. Renovation project expenses swelled
with the cost of asbestos cleanup.
A June 2008 estimate put the total cost of the project at
US$62,412,000, more than four times the 2001 estimate of US$15
million.
The county sued Nova and Skanska for compensation for asbestos
removal and testing costs. The county's lawsuit and a cross-
complaint from one of the contractors are still pending, said
County Counsel Charles McKee.
The remodeling work is now slated to finish in April 2010 or May
2010.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Acknowledges AUD160Mil Gov't. Assistance
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. acknowledges the announcement that
the Australian Government will provide a loan of up to AUD160
million to the New South Wales Government that will go towards a
loan facility of up to AUD320 million to be made available by the
NSW Government to the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund (AICF)
to meet a short-term funding shortfall.
The Company also reconfirms its commitment to the agreement
negotiated between the Company, the AICF and the NSW Government,
according to a Company press release dated Nov. 7, 2009.
The Company advises that the provision of the loan facility to
the AICF does not reduce the Company's obligations under the
Amended and Restated Final Funding Agreement (AFFA). The
obligation to pay claimants remains with the AICF, and its
primary source of funding continues to be contributions from the
Company.
The AFFA continues to operate in accordance with terms negotiated
by all parties, and all proven claims against former James Hardie
subsidiaries and the AICF have been, and continue to be, paid in
full.
James Hardie CEO, Louis Gries, said, "James Hardie remains
committed to the performance of its obligations under the
agreement. Furthermore, James Hardie anticipates that, based on
its fiscal year 2010 results to date, it expects to make a
contribution to the AICF, in accordance with the agreement, in
2010. We look forward to working with the NSW Government, the
AICF and the Australian Government to finalize the facility."
Under the AFFA, the Company contributes a maximum of 35 percent
of its annual net operating cash flow to the AICF. Its
contributions to the AICF have been affected by the decline in
the Company's cash flow as a result of the unprecedented downturn
in the U.S. housing markets, where new housing construction fell
over 75 percent, from its peak of more than two million houses in
late 2005-early 2006, to a low of around 460,000 in 2009.
The Company derived around 77 percent of fiscal year 2009 net
sales in the U.S.
Since the AICF was established in 2007, the Company has
contributed AUD302 million to the fund. Additionally, AUD293
million was provided to the Medical Research and Compensation
Foundation (MRCF) in 2001. Almost AUD600 million has been
provided in contributions since 2001.
The Company is also contributing AUD500,000 a year for 10 years
towards medical research into the prevention, treatment and cure
of asbestos diseases, and AUD75,000 a year for 10 years for an
education program to inform home renovators of the risks
associated with asbestos.
James Hardie Industries N.V. uses cellulose-reinforced fiber
cement to create products for residential and commercial
construction, including siding (Hardiplank), external cladding,
walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company also makes fiber-
reinforced concrete (FRC) pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.
The Company is based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Industries Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in asbestos-related litigation claims, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2009.
Over recent years there has been a significant increase in
certain U.S. states in asbestos-related litigation claims against
numerous industrial companies.
No significant resources have been required by the Company to
respond to these cases.
Roper Industries, Inc. designs, manufactures and distributes
energy systems and controls, scientific and industrial imaging
products and software, industrial technology products and radio
frequency products and services. The Company is based in
Sarasota, Fla.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Anadarko Petroleum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to face various personal
injury claims, including claims by employees of third-party
contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and benzene
while working at refineries located in Texas, California and
Oklahoma.
These refineries were previously owned by predecessors of
acquired companies, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3,
2009.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is an independent oil and natural
gas exploration and production company. The Company explores for,
develops, produces, gathers, processes, and markets natural gas,
crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGLs). The Company
is based in The Woodlands, Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Expends $1.845Mil for Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were
US$1,845,000 during the three months ended Oct. 2, 2009, compared
with US$5,148,000 during the three months ended Sept. 26, 2008,
according to a Company press release dated Nov. 3, 2009.
The Company recorded asbestos coverage litigation expenses of
US$4,027,000 during the three months ended July 3, 2009, compared
with US$3,970,000 during the three months ended June 27, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)
Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$8,838,000 during
the nine months ended Oct. 2, 2009, compared with US$12,257,000
during the nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008.
Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$1,377,000 during the
three months ended Oct. 2, 2009, and asbestos liability and
defense income was US$6,312,000 during the three months ended
Sept. 26, 2008.
Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$4,504,000 during the
nine months ended Oct. 2, 2009, and asbestos liability and
defense income was US$6,749,000 as of Sept. 26, 2009.
Colfax Corporation manufactures positive displacement industrial
pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power generation, commercial
marine, global naval and general industrial markets. The Company
is based in Richmond, Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Cites $28.1M Current Liability at Oct. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's current accrued asbestos liability was
US$28,103,000 as of Oct. 2, 2009, compared with US$28,574,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release dated Nov.
3, 2009.
The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$316,218,000 as
of Oct. 2, 2009, compared with US$328,684,000 as of Dec. 31,
2008.
Current asbestos insurance asset was US$26,031,000 as of Oct. 2,
2009, compared with US$26,473,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008. Long-term
asbestos insurance asset was US$267,396,000 as of Oct. 2, 2009,
compared with US$277,542,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$34,972,000 as of Oct. 2, 2009, compared with US$36,371,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008.
Colfax Corporation manufactures positive displacement industrial
pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power generation, commercial
marine, global naval and general industrial markets. The Company
is based in Richmond, Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Still Party to Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. continues to be a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and
substances in the workplace, including asbestos.
To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these
suits and has settled a number of others, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 6, 2009.
Precision Castparts Corp. manufactures complex metal components
and products, provides high-quality investment castings, forgings
and fasteners/fastener systems for critical aerospace and
industrial gas turbine (IGT) applications. The Company is based
in Portland, Ore.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Reserves $90M for Claims at Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord LLC says that its parent company, RBS Global, Inc.,
reserved US$90 million for asbestos claims as of both Sept. 26,
2009 and March 31, 2008, according to a Rexnord press release
dated Nov. 6, 2009.
RBS Global's long-term insurance for asbestos claims was US$90
million as of both Sept. 26, 2009 and March 31, 2008.
Rexnord LLC is a global multi-platform industrial company
comprised of two platforms: Power Transmission and Water
Management. The Company has about 5,700 employees worldwide. The
Company is based in Milwaukee.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 570 Actions Ongoing v. MeadWestvaco at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2009, faced 570
outstanding asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 4, 2009.
As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company
has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants.
To date, the costs resulting from the litigation, including
settlement costs, have not been significant.
At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$19 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos.
MeadWestvaco Corporation is a global packaging company that
provides packaging solutions to many of the world's brands in the
healthcare, personal and beauty care, food, beverage, tobacco,
home and garden, and media and entertainment industries. The
Company is based in Glen Allen, Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 61,820 Claims Ongoing v. CBS Corp. at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had about 61,820 pending asbestos claims as of
Sept. 30, 2009, as compared with about 68,520 as of Dec. 31, 2008
and 69,280 as of Sept. 30, 2008, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 5, 2009.
The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.
During the third quarter of 2009, the Company received about
1,090 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about
3,750 claims.
The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims
after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were about
US$15 million for 2008 and US$17.5 million for 2007.
CBS Corporation is comprised of the following segments:
Television, Radio, Outdoor, Interactive and Publishing. The
Company is based in New York.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $151.4M Sept. 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long term asbestos liability was
US$151,435,090 as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$187,014,000
as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9,
2009.
The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$159,357,687 as
of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 11, 2009)
Current asbestos liability was US$32 million as of Sept. 30,
2009, compared with US$20 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$97,655,088 as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$122,175,929
as of Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$103,151,356 as of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
11, 2009)
Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$22 million as of
Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$14 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures heavy metal products.
Its forged and cast steel rolls unit, Union Electric Steel Corp.
and Davy Roll Co., makes hardened-steel rolls for steel and
aluminum manufacturers. Its air and liquid processing segment
comprises three companies: Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo
Air Handling.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,870 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced 8,870 open asbestos claims for
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 9,415 claims
for the six months ended June 30, 2009.
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.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the gross settlement
and defense costs were US$21,191,000 and the Company recorded
1,649 claims settled or dismissed.
Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
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, around 333 as of Sept.
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 Corporation (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 heavy metal products.
Its forged and cast steel rolls unit, Union Electric Steel Corp.
and Davy Roll Co., makes hardened-steel rolls for steel and
aluminum manufacturers. Its air and liquid processing segment
comprises three companies: Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo
Air Handling.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Howden Case v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Filed on Aug. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howden Buffalo, Inc., on Aug. 4, 2009, filed an asbestos
insurance lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and
other parties.
Howden also sued two insurance companies that allegedly issued
policies to Howden that are not relevant to the Company and two
other insurance companies that issued excess insurance policies
covering certain subsidiaries of the Company(Excess Policies),
but that are not yet part of a Coverage Arrangement.
In the lawsuit, Howden seeks a declaratory judgment from the
court as to the respective rights and obligations of Howden, the
Company and the insurance carriers under the Excess Policies.
One of the excess carriers and the Company have filed cross-
claims against each other seeking declarations regarding their
respective rights and obligations under Excess Policies issued by
that carrier. The Company's cross-claim also seeks damages for
the carrier's failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs.
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures heavy metal products.
Its forged and cast steel rolls unit, Union Electric Steel Corp.
and Davy Roll Co., makes hardened-steel rolls for steel and
aluminum manufacturers. Its air and liquid processing segment
comprises three companies: Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo
Air Handling.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Units Facing 2,700 Open Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd units (aside from Combustion Engineering, Inc. (CE) and
former unit Lummus Global) faced about 2,700 outstanding asbestos
claims at Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 7,500 claims at Dec. 31,
2008.
CE was a co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming
damage for personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A
smaller number of claims were also brought against Lummus as well
as against other entities of the Company.
Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended,
were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The CE
plan of reorganization and the Lummus plan of reorganization
(collectively, the Plans) became effective on April 21, 2006 and
Aug. 31, 2006, respectively.
Under the Plans, separate personal injury trusts were created and
funded to settle future asbestos-related claims against CE and
Lummus and on the respective Plan effective dates, channeling
injunctions were issued under Section 524(g) of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code under which all present and future asbestos-
related personal injury claims filed against the Company and its
affiliates and certain other entities that relate to the
operations of CE and Lummus are channeled to the CE Asbestos PI
Trust or the Lummus Asbestos PI Trust, respectively.
Funding of the CE Asbestos PI Trust has been made on certain
scheduled payment dates. In addition, US$204 million was paid to
this Trust on Nov. 14, 2007, as required in conjunction with the
sale of Lummus which occurred on Nov. 16, 2007. Funding of the
Lummus Asbestos PI Trust was completed on May 2, 2007 upon the
payment to that Trust of US$28 million.
From time to time, other entities of the Company have been named
as defendants in asbestos-related claims.
ABB Ltd provides power and automation technologies to utility,
industrial, and commercial customers. Power products include
transmission and distribution components, as well as turnkey
substation systems. Automation technologies are used to monitor
and control equipment and processes in industrial plants and
utilities. The Company is based in Zurich, Switzerland.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Has $25M Non-Current Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd's total non-current asbestos liabilities were US$25
million as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$50 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.
Total current asbestos liabilities were US$28 million as of Sept.
30, 2009, compared with US$4 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.
The asbestos obligations relating to the Combustion Engineering,
Inc. (CE) Plan of Reorganization as reflected in the Company's
Interim Consolidated Financial Information were payable under a
non-interest bearing promissory note (the ABB Promissory Note).
If the Company is found by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the
Bankruptcy Court) to have defaulted on its payment obligations
under the ABB Promissory Note, the CE Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust may petition the Bankruptcy Court to terminate the CE
channeling injunction and the protections afforded by that
injunction to the Company and other entities of the Company as
well as certain other entities, including Alstom SA.
ABB Ltd provides power and automation technologies to utility,
industrial, and commercial customers. Power products include
transmission and distribution components, as well as turnkey
substation systems. Automation technologies are used to monitor
and control equipment and processes in industrial plants and
utilities. The Company is based in Zurich, Switzerland.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alliant Energy Unit Has $1.2M Settled Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliant Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Interstate Power and
Light, in 2009, recorded liabilities settled of US$1.2 million
due to expenditures for asbestos and lead remediation at its
Sixth Street and Prairie Creek Generating Stations.
The remediation was required as a result of the impacts of the
severe Midwest flooding at these generating stations in June
2008.
In 2008, IPL recorded changes to liabilities incurred, revisions
in estimated cash flows and liabilities settled due to asbestos
remediation at its Sixth Street and Prairie Creek Generating
Stations as a result of the impacts of the severe Midwest
flooding at these generating stations in June 2008.
Alliant Energy Corporation is an investor-owned public utility
holding company whose primary subsidiaries are Interstate Power
and Light Company, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Resources
and Corporate Services. The Company is based in Madison, Wis.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Faces 10,300 Cases (38,700 Claims)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2009, is involved in about 10,300
asbestos cases (about 38,700 claims), which are not related to
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC).
Corning Inc., as of June 30, 2009, the Company was involved in
about 10,300 cases (about 42,800 claims), which were not related
to PCC. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2009)
The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50 percent of the
capital stock of PCC. Over a period of more than two decades, PCC
and several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits
involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos.
On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about
11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits
alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's
asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in
excess of US$1 million per claim.
On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
resolution of all current and future asbestos claims against it
and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or operations (the
2003 Plan).
On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the parties in the proceeding advised
the Bankruptcy Court that they had made substantial progress on a
proposed amended plan of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan)
that resolved issues raised by the Court in denying the
confirmation of the 2003 Plan and that would therefore make it
unnecessary for the Bankruptcy Court to decide the motion for
reconsideration.
On March 27, 2008 and May 22, 2008, the parties further informed
the Bankruptcy Court on the progress toward the Amended PCC Plan.
The parties filed a partial tentative plan on Aug. 8, 2008.
The parties continued to inform the Bankruptcy Court of the
status of their discussions on the Amended PCC Plan. The complete
Amended PCC Plan and its ancillary documents were filed with the
Bankruptcy Court on Jan. 29, 2009.
The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos
claims was estimated to be US$677 million at Sept. 30, 2009,
compared with an estimate of liability of US$662 million at Dec.
31, 2008. The Company recorded asbestos litigation expense of
US$6 million in the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009 and US$15
million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.
The entire obligation is classified as a non-current liability as
installment payments for the cash portion of the obligation are
not planned to commence until more than 12 months after the
Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion of the
obligation will be fulfilled through the direct contribution of
the Company's investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-
current other equity method investment).
The Amended PCC Plan is subject to a number of contingencies.
Payment of the amounts required to fund the Amended PCC Plan from
insurance and other sources are subject to a number of conditions
which may not be achieved.
Corning Incorporated makes components that enable systems for
consumer electronics, mobile emissions control, life sciences and
telecommunications. Products include glass substrates; ceramic
substrates and filters; optical fiber, cable, hardware &
equipment; optical biosensors; and other advanced optics and
specialty glass solutions. The Company is based in Corning, N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasty Baking Co. Records $7.3MM ARO at Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tasty Baking Company's asbestos-related conditional asset
retirement obligation totaled US$7.3 million as of Sept. 26, 2009
and US$7 million as of Dec. 27, 2008.
The Company has a conditional asset retirement obligation related
to asbestos in its Philadelphia manufacturing facility. As a
result of the Company's decision to relocate its Philadelphia
operations, it was able to estimate a settlement date for the
asset retirement obligation and recognized a liability for this
obligation.
This obligation will continue to accrete to the full value of the
future obligation over the remaining period until settlement of
the obligation which is expected to occur in June 2010, while the
capitalized asset retirement cost is depreciated through December
2044, the remaining useful life of the Philadelphia manufacturing
facility.
The Company recorded US$100,000 during the 13 weeks ended Sept.
26, 2009 (US$300,000 during the 39 weeks ended Sept. 26, 2009) in
interest associated with the conditional asset retirement
obligation.
The Company also recorded US$100,000 during the 13 weeks ended
Sept. 27, 2008 (US$300,000 during the 39 weeks ended Sept. 27,
2008) in interest associated with the conditional asset
retirement obligation.
Tasty Baking Company produces sweet baked goods. The Company has
two manufacturing facilities, one in Philadelphia and a second in
Oxford, Pa. The Company is based in Philadelphia.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. STERIS Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation is and will likely continue to be involved in
legal proceedings and claims concerning asbestos-related product
exposure.
No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 3, 2009.
STERIS Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets infection
prevention, contamination control, microbial reduction, and
surgical and critical care support products and services for
healthcare, pharmaceutical, scientific, research, industrial, and
governmental Customers. The Company is based in Mentor, Ohio.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 106,121 Open Claims Ongoing v. ITT at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation faced 106,121 open asbestos claims as of Sept.
30, 2009, compared with 103,626 claims as of Sept. 30, 2008,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3, 2009.
As of June 30, 2009, the Company faced 102,227 open asbestos-
related claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14,
2009)
As of Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 2,608 new claims, 774
settlements, and 1,927 dismissals. As of Sept. 30, 2008, the
Company recorded 5,252 new claims, 1,535 settlements, and 2,659
dismissals.
The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has
been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in
product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain of the
Company's products sold prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party, e.g., a gasket, which contained
asbestos.
Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any Company or
Goulds product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, in
a large majority of the claims against the Company, the
plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury. Many of those
claims have been placed on inactive dockets (including 43,568
claims in Mississippi).
The Company's experience to date is that a substantial portion of
resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the
Company. As a result, management believes that about 90 percent
of the 106,121 open claims have little or no value.
The average payment per resolved claim was US$11,300 for the nine
months ended September 2009 and US$8,000 for the nine months
ended September 2008.
ITT Corporation is an engineering and manufacturing company
operating in three markets: water and fluids management, global
defense and security, and motion and flow control. The Company is
based in White Plains, N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Party to Cannon Electric Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation is party to product liability litigation styled
Cannon Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.
The Company was commenced on Feb. 13, 2003 in Los Angeles County
Superior Court.
During this coverage litigation, the Company entered into
coverage-in-place settlement agreements with ACE on April 2004,
Wausau on September 2004 and Utica Mutual on February 2007. These
agreements provide specific coverage for the Company's legacy
asbestos liabilities.
The Company has negotiated other settlements with certain
defendant insurance companies and is prepared to pursue legal
remedies against the remaining defendants where reasonable
negotiations are not productive.
ITT Corporation is an engineering and manufacturing company
operating in three markets: water and fluids management, global
defense and security, and motion and flow control. The Company is
based in White Plains, N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2,800 Claims Filed v. MetLife Unit at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(MLIC), received about 2,800 new asbestos-related claims during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 3,700 claims
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.
As reported in the 2008 Annual Report, MLIC received about 5,063
asbestos-related claims in 2008.
MLIC received 1,726 new asbestos-related claims during the six
months ended June 30, 2009, compared with 2,863 claims during the
six months ended June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21,
2009)
MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through
about the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly
publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
During 1998, MLIC paid US$878 million in premiums for excess
insurance policies for asbestos-related claims. The excess
insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provided for
recovery of losses up to US$1.5 billion in excess of a US$400
million self-insured retention. The Company's initial option to
commute the excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims
would have arisen at the end of 2008.
On Sept. 29, 2008, MLIC entered into agreements commuting the
excess insurance policies at Sept. 30, 2008. As a result of the
commutation of the policies, MLIC received cash and securities
totaling US$632 million.
Of this total, MLIC received US$115 million in fixed maturity
securities on Sept. 26, 2008, US$200 million in cash on Oct. 29,
2008, and US$317 million in cash on Jan. 29, 2009. MLIC
recognized a loss on commutation of the policies in the amount of
US$35.3 million during 2008.
MetLife, Inc. offers life insurance, annuities, auto and home
insurance, retail banking and other financial services to
individuals, as well as group insurance and retirement & savings
products and services to corporations and other institutions. The
Company is based in New York.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Shipyards Has 565 Open Claims at Sept. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation is currently defending about 565
asbestos claims, of which 10 are "malignant" claims and 555 are
"non-malignant" claims, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
5, 2009.
The Company faced about 557 asbestos claims, of which 11 were
"malignant" claims and 546 were "non-malignant" claims. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2009)
The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances,
generally asbestos, at closed former facilities.
The cases generally include as defendants, in addition to the
Company, other ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos
manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment
manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances.
As of Sept. 27, 2009, the Company has recorded a bodily injury
liability reserve of US$4.8 million and a bodily injury insurance
receivable of US$3.8 million. This compares to a previously
recorded bodily injury reserve of US$5 million and insurance
receivable of US$3.8 million at March 29, 2009.
Todd Shipyards Corporation, through Todd Pacific Shipyards,
repairs, maintains, overhauls, and builds government-owned and
commercial vessels. Services range from minor repairs to major
overhauls in dry dock at the Company's Seattle-area shipyard. The
Company is based in Seattle.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 23 of Douglas Emmett's Properties Have Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental site assessments and investigations have identified
23 properties in Douglas Emmett, Inc.'s portfolio containing
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2009.
The asbestos would have to be removed in compliance with
applicable environmental regulations if these properties undergo
major renovations or are demolished.
As of Sept. 30, 2009, the obligations to remove the asbestos from
these properties have indeterminable settlement dates, and
therefore, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the fair
value of the associated conditional asset retirement obligation.
Douglas Emmett, Inc. is a fully integrated, self-administered and
self-managed Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). Through its
interest in Douglas Emmett Properties, LP and its subsidiaries,
the Company owns, manages, leases, acquires and develops real
estate. The Company is based in Santa Monica, Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 38 Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Noble at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation says that, at Sept. 30, 2009, there were 38
asbestos lawsuits in which the Company is one of many defendants,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2009.
From time to time, the Company is party to various lawsuits that
are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.
These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these lawsuits is not
currently determinable.
Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil
and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling services
with its fleet of 62 offshore drilling units located worldwide,
currently including the Middle East, India, the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico, Mexico, the North Sea, Brazil, and West Africa. The fleet
count includes three rigs currently under construction. The
Company is based in Sugar Land, Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. and its subsidiaries continue to be parties to
various lawsuits and claims involving asbestos exposure.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 9, 2009.
FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide electricity to 4.5 million
customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The Company's
domestic power plants have a total generating capacity of more
than 14,170 MW, most generated by coal-fired plants. The Company
is based in Akron, Ohio.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Still Subject to Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (or its predecessor companies)
has been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in
lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos during work at formerly owned facilities.
Some facilities formerly owned by the Company's predecessors have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and operates natural gas
distribution systems in six states. Subsidiaries own interstate
natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and provide
various ancillary services. The Company is an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. The Company is based
in Houston.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Inc. Facing 97 Injury Actions at Oct. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc., as of Oct. 15, 2009, faced 97 asbestos-related
injury cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3, 2009.
Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory,
special and punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a heat-resistant
asbestos fiber.
The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products
that contained the fiber, but ceased production of those products
more than 20 years ago.
Through Oct. 15, 2009, the Company has been dismissed, or reached
agreement to be dismissed, in more than 300 similar cases without
any going to trial, and with a small number of these involving
any payment to the claimant.
Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets signal
transmission solutions, including cable, connectivity, and active
components for mission-critical applications in markets ranging
from industrial automation to data centers, broadcast studios,
and aerospace. The Company is based in St. Louis.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ladish Co. Has 15 Claims in 3 States at Nov. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co, Inc., as of Nov. 3, 2009, faced 15 individual asbestos
claims in three states: 12 individual claims pending in
Mississippi, two individual claims pending in Illinois and one
individual claim pending in Wisconsin.
The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
Company's exposure to asbestos involves products the Company
purchased from third parties.
Given that the consortium of insurers are handling the defense of
the Company, combined with the lack of actual exposure or prior
negative judgments, the Company has not made any provision in its
financial statements for the asbestos litigation.
Ladish Co., Inc. designs and manufactures high-strength forged
and cast metal components for aerospace and industrial markets.
Jet engine parts, missile components, landing gear, helicopter
rotors, and other aerospace products generate about 75 percent of
the Company's sales. General industrial components account for
the remaining 25 percent. The Company is based in Cudahy, Wis.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 201 Claims Ongoing v. Rogers Corp. at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 201 asbestos claims were pending against Rogers Corporation
as of Sept. 30, 2009, compared with about 163 pending claims at
Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3, 2009.
The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. It did not mine, mill,
manufacture or market asbestos. Rather, the Company made some
limited products, which contained encapsulated asbestos.
Those products were provided to industrial users. The Company
stopped manufacturing the last of these products in 1990.
Of the 201 claims pending as of Sept. 30, 2009, about 60 claims
do not specify the amount of damages sought, about 138 claims
cite jurisdictional amounts, and three claims (or about 1.5
percent of the pending claims) specify the amount of damages
sought not based on jurisdictional requirements.
Of these three claims, two claims allege compensatory and
punitive damages of US$20 million each and one claim alleges
compensatory and punitive damages of US$1 million and an
unspecified amount of exemplary damages, interest and costs.
These three claims name between nine and 76 defendants.
Cases involving the Company name 50-300 defendants, although some
cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants. The
Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims. In the
nine month period ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company was able to
have 48 claims dismissed and settled 15 claims. For the full year
2008, about 83 claims were dismissed and four were settled.
Most of the costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of
cases that have been settled.
Those settlements totaled about US$5.7 million as of Sept. 30,
2009, compared with about US$1.5 million for the full year 2008.
Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures high performance,
specialty-material-based products for a variety of applications
in diverse markets including: portable communications,
communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment,
consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense.
The Company is based in Rogers, Conn.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Still Subject to Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Beloit Corporation continues to be party to litigation,
including product warranty and liability claims, contract
disputes and environmental, asbestos, employment and other
litigation matters.
The Company's products are used in various industrial, commercial
and residential applications that subject it to claims that the
use of its products is alleged to have resulted in injury or
other damage.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 4, 2009.
Regal Beloit Corporation manufactures commercial, industrial, and
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) electric
motors, electric generators and controls, and mechanical motion
control products. The Company is based in Beloit, Wis.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edinburgh Council Penalized for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Council of the City of Edinburgh, Scotland, on Nov. 11, 2009,
was fined GBP14,000 after several of its joiners were exposed to
asbestos at the Castlebrae Community High School, the Evening
News reports.
The joiners were cutting a hole in a door from the school when
white dust suspected to be asbestos was discovered.
The city's sheriff court heard in February 2007 the school
initiated a project to turn the physics room into a hairdressing
salon. Part of the project required viewing panels to be cut in
the doors.
The doors had been removed from the school to the Council
joiner's workshop at Murrayburn Road to allow the procedure to be
carried out.
At an earlier hearing, fiscal deputy Sally Clark told the court a
significant amount of white dust was created as two joiners cut
the first of the doors using a hand-held powered saw on April 3,
2007. However, halfway through cutting, one of the employees put
on a mask. A health and safety officer was called in and the
workshop was closed.
Tests were carried out on the white powder, which was found to be
asbestos, and the workshop had to be decontaminated. The court
also heard the asbestos register at the school did not show a
plan with the location of the doors containing the substance.
A Health and Safety investigation revealed the Council's asbestos
procedures said that preparations for any building work must
include an assessment of anything which might expose workers to
asbestos.
However, the inquiry found it was custom and practice for
employees and contractors not to check the Asbestos Register on
site instead they waited until anything suspicious was noticed
after starting work.
City of Edinburgh Council admitted four charges of breaching
asbestos regulations which included failing to make a risk
assessment prior to carrying out work, failing to prepare a
written plan, breaching a duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic
premises and failing to take measures to prevent employees being
exposed to the substance.
Defense agent Mark Mohammed said as soon as the incident occurred
steps were taken to investigate what went wrong and to make sure
it did not happen again. He added that the Council had been
served with an improvement notice and had complied with its
terms.
Back in February 2009, the authority was fined GBP17,600 also at
Edinburgh Sheriff Court after workers were exposed to asbestos
while demolishing a wall at the same school.
The council hired Dalkeith Demolition Ltd (DDL) to remove the
asbestos but its staff was not trained and the company joined
with the council in admitting a series of failures under the
Health and Safety at Work Act and Control of Asbestos
Regulations. DDL was also fined GBP11,333.
On Nov. 11, 2009, Sheriff Isabella McColl said, "The degree of
risk regarding asbestos must be regarded as very grave indeed. It
is well known to be carcinogenic and a risk for those in the
building trade."
The sheriff said she had reduced the fine from GBP20,000 to take
into account the authority's early guilty plea but said the fine
would have been much higher for a non-public body.
HSE inspector Mike Orr said the case should serve as a warning to
other property owners.
*********
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 * * *