/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100219.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 19, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 35 Headlines AMICAS INC: Mass. Suit Complains About Going-Private Transaction ARAMARK SPORTS: Notice of Class Action Settlement CALIFORNIA: Race-Based University Admissions Challenged Again CARBONITE: Fla. Suit Complains About Computer Backup Services COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Affirms Class in Hawaii Mortgage Fee Suit CRST VAN: Awarded $4.5 Mil. Defense Costs in EEOC Litigation EASTERN REGIONAL: Canadian Court Approves Class Action Settlement ELI LILLY: Ontario Court Certifies Gambling Addict Class EXPEDIA INC: hotels.com Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Tex. EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Second Amended Securities Suit EXPEDIA INC: Appeal on Settlement Approval Remains Pending EXPEDIA INC: Court Approves Settlement in Suit Versus Hotwire EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in New York Still Pending EXPEDIA INC: Canadian Subsidiary Continues to Face Class Suit EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit by Los Angeles City EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit by Findlay EXPEDIA INC: Parties in Georgia Suit Agree to Mediation EXPEDIA INC: No Final Judgment Amount in San Antonio City Suit EXPEDIA INC: Gallup City's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Amended Suit by Columbus City EXPEDIA INC: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Kentucky Suit EXPEDIA INC: Nassau County's Suit Remanded by Second Circuit EXPEDIA INC: Settlement Reached in Jefferson City Lawsuit EXPEDIA INC: Goodlettsville's Class Certification Motion Pending EXPEDIA INC: Lyndhurst's Appeal of Dismissal Remains Pending EXPEDIA INC: IAC Dismissed from Jacksonville's Lawsuit EXPEDIA INC: Wants Arkansas Court to Dismiss Pine Bluff Suit FACEBOOK INC: Calif. Suit Complains About New Privacy Settings FIRST HEALTH: Appeal and Cross Appeal Filed in Class Action Case HUNTER HOLMES: Settles Employee Discrimination Suit for $5 Mil. LIBERTY MEDIA: Sued for Allowing Directors to Convert Shares NORTH CAROLINA: Suit Complains About Mental Health Funding Cuts NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Labaton Sucharow Secures C$28 Mil. Settlement SCHENECTADY COUNTY: 2d Cir. Upholds Fee Cuts in Strip-Search Suit SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Won't Reward Kenmore Dryer Class Counsel SOUTHWESTERN BELL: Plaintiffs Sue Tex. Sup. Ct. to Speed Ruling TOYOTA MOTOR: Files Sudden Acceleration Injury Suit in Calif. WEST PUBLISHING: McGuireWoods Gets Zilch from $49 Mil. Settlement Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: DPL, Unit Subject to Pending Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,611 Claims Pending v. Burlington at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 23T Injury Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Still Faces Continental Case in Ill. ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Technologies Still Facing Injury Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Injury Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Long-Term Liability at $406.9M in Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Corp. Units Face 526 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $155MM Litigation Charges in 2009 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $831M NARCO Receivable at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $300Mil NARCO Coverage at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Bendix Decrease to 19,940 at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Liabilities at $1.69B at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Has Capital Expenditures for Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Congoleum's Plan Slated for March 12 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Has $17.5M Adjustment in 3Q-Fiscal 2010 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Has $102.1M Current Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand plc Records $25M Income in 2009 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Dismissal Motion in Garner Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich, Units Still Subject to Injury Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Still Subject to Respirator Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in 9th Case v. 3M Company Still Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Still Has $34MM Aearo Liabilities at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Records $138M Liabilities at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Insurance Case v. 3M Set for June 2012 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Okla. Court Affirms Dismissal of Winrow Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Workers Protesting on Elmira Site Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Saranac Lake, N.Y. Lot to Cost $12T ASBESTOS UPDATE: Soyars Indicted for Cleanup Violations in Colo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Probing Topeka Prison for Inmates' Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Firm Ordered to Clear Hazard from Empty Lot ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warning Issued Over Imported Tiles in Australia ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Records Lower Hazard Levels in Libby, Mont. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Uncovered at Sackets Sewage Plant Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal to Spend $4M for Cleanup in 2010 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal Cites 402 French Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Still Subject to Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in AMSF Action Heard in Dec. 2009 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Co. Records $90M Settlement in 2009 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hosea Project Pays $22T Fine for Cleanup Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schuylkill Contractor Cleared of Cleanup Charge ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie in Dispute With CSR Over Berengo Payout ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynoldsburg City Seeks $435T Grant for Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repairs at Fresno's Art Museum to Cost $241,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mt. Hood Community College Slated for Abatement ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Defense Dept. Lauded for Funding Increase ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Hazards Found in West Mackay Primary School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grayling, AT Remove Hazards from Welcome House ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wahpeton School Board in N.D. Affirms Abatement ********* AMICAS INC: Mass. Suit Complains About Going-Private Transaction ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say directors of Amicas are taking the technology company private for the unfair price of $5.35 a share, or $217 million, in Suffolk County Court, Boston. A copy of the Complaint in Mannhardt v. Amicas, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-0412 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/16/SCAAmicas.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP 53 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617-439-3939 - and - Marc A. Topaz, Esq. Lee D. Rudy, Esq. Michael C. Wagner, Esq. J. Daniel Albert, Esq. BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: 610-667-7706 ARAMARK SPORTS: Notice of Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------- This notice may affect your rights. Please read carefully. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: ) ) HANLON ) ) CASE NO.: CV 09-465 v. ) ) ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC, ) SUMMARY NOTICE OF CERTIFIED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit about the truncation requirements imposed by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). All persons who used a credit or debit card at any store at PNC Park between March 24, 2009 and April 23, 2009 MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A SETTLEMENT VOUCHER, as set forth below. If you qualify, you may send in a claim form to get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from the settlement, or object to it. WHO'S INCLUDED? You are a class member and could get benefits if you used a credit or debit card at any store at PNC Park between March 24, 2009 and April 23, 2009. If you believe you are a member of the class, you may view the Full Notice online at: http://www.carlsonlynch.com/ or you can request a copy of the Full Notice by sending a written request to: Aramark Sports, LLC Settlement PO Box 367 Sewickley, PA 15143 Include your name and current address. You may also request a Notice and Claim Form by calling Class Counsel at 1-800-467-5241. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT? Jeff Hanlon ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of all members of the class, has asserted that Aramark Sports, LLC violated certain requirements imposed by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). Specifically, plaintiff claims that Aramark Sports, LLC printed the expiration date of its customers' credit or debit cards on receipts presented to them at the store, in violation of FACTA, as specifically set forth in the Complaint on file and available at the Court at 700 Grant Street, Suite 3100, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Aramark Sports, LLC denies any liability or wrongdoing. Neither plaintiff nor any class member has sustained any actual monetary injury as a result of the issues in dispute in this litigation. However, FACTA requires that the expiration date be deleted from credit card receipts presented to customers at the point of sale. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Under the terms of the settlement, each class member will be entitled to receive a voucher good for (1) $50 off of a purchase of an item with a price of $100 or more; or (2) a "classy" tee shirt with a suggested retail value of $20-40; or (3) a "hoodie" with a suggested retail value of $50-55 redeemable at the Pirate Outfitters location at PNC Park. The Settlement also imposes certain other requirements and restrictions, which are set forth in detail in the Settlement Agreement. A Full Notice describing the Settlement in more detail is available at the website above. HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A VOUCHER? If you would like to participate in the settlement and receive one of the Settlement Vouchers described above, you can simply complete the short form attached to this Summary Notice and mail it to Aramark Sports, LLC Settlement, PO Box 367, Sewickley, PA 15143 postmarked by June 17, 2010. WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS? If you do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by April 1, 2010, or you won't be able to sue, or continue to sue, Aramark Sports, LLC about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you can't get a Settlement Voucher from this settlement. If you stay in the settlement, you may object to it by April 1, 2010. The Full Notice contains important information regarding the rights, obligations, requirements, and deadlines for class members to participate in the Settlement, to exclude themselves from the Settlement, or to object. The Court will hold a hearing in this case (HANLON V. ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC, CASE NO.: CV 09-465) on April 5, 2010, at 10:00 am in Courtroom 3A, 3rd Floor, United States Courthouse, 7th & Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 to consider whether to approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers representing all Class Members (Carlson Lynch LTD) for attorneys' fees and costs of $105,000.00. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don't have to. If you wish to communicate with class counsel identified above, you may do so by writing to: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PO Box 367 Sewickley, PA 15143 Alternatively, you may call the offices of the firm at its toll free number 1-800-467-5241. This notice is not to be construed as an expression of any opinion by the District Court with respect to the merits of the respective claims or defenses of the parties. The Honorable Gary L. Lancaster United States District Court Judge If you have any questions or concerns, address all inquiries in the manner set forth above. The court and the clerk will not answer legal questions from individual claimants. By issuing this notice, the court expresses no opinion as to the merits of any claims or defenses asserted in this civil action. Please do not contact the court. CALIFORNIA: Race-Based University Admissions Challenged Again ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a pro-affirmative action group is renewing efforts to overturn the California law that prohibits public universities from considering race in student admissions. Attorneys for Michigan-based By Any Means Necessary filed a class-action lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Oakland. It challenges the constitutionality of the ballot measure approved by the state's voters in 1996. Both a federal appeals court and the California Supreme Court have rebuffed earlier challenges to the law, known as Proposition 209. The complaint says a pair of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in affirmative action cases since those earlier decisions warrant another effort to invalidate the part of Proposition 209 that deals with university admissions. The law also barred racial preferences in government hiring and contracts. CARBONITE: Fla. Suit Complains About Computer Backup Services ------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Mendez at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that Carbonite sells computer backup services for $50 a year without telling customers that the system fails with Windows Vista. The named plaintiff, a dentist, claims that after he lost data, Carbonite told him that it "was aware of the glitch, but did not want to cause 'widespread panic' with its customers" by informing them. While he was waiting, fruitlessly, for Carbonite to solve the problem, the dentist says, the company "had the gall" to automatically bill him for a second year of service -- at $54.95, up from the $49.95 he paid for year one. Dr. Allan Gross claims that Carbonite lures customers with a fraudulent pitch: "The statistics are staggering: every year 43% of computer users lose irreplaceable files. Dangers lurk around every corner -- hard drive crashes, theft, power surges, natural disasters, or accidentally deleting your own files. You need to be aware that losing your most valuable files is a very real possibility. You need to take proper precautions." Carbonite claims that its software will assure that its customers' data is "constantly and automatically backed up." But Mr. Gross says that after signing up, he tried to transfer all of his files from an HP computer running Windows XP to an Acer computer with Windows Vista, which he upgraded to Windows 7. He says he was "unable to retrieve the data that defendant represented to be backed up." During the weeks in which he tried, unsuccessfully, to regain his professional and personal files, Mr. Gross says, Carbonite representatives told him that the company "was aware of the glitch, but did not want to cause 'widespread panic' with its customers," and "had the gall" to bill him again. Mr. Gross says Carbonite refused to return all of his money -- that the best offer it made was 6 months of free service, which he rejected. He demands damages for breach of contract and fraudulent concealment, and want the "arbitration and no class action clauses" declared unenforceable contracts of adhesion, and the limitation on damages unenforceable as well. A copy of the Complaint in Gross v. Carbonite, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-60211 (S.D. Fla.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/16/Carbonite.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq. David L. Ferguson, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG KEECHL 200 S.W. First Ave., 12th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-525-4100 COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Affirms Class in Hawaii Mortgage Fee Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accusing Countrywide Home Loans of charging illegal fees can proceed, the Hawaii Court of Appeals ruled. When Cynthia Nakamura refinanced her home, Countrywide charged her a $60 statement fee. She paid it, but then filed a class action against the company, challenging the legality of the fee. Ms. Nakamura said she "represents a class of mortgagors that have been damaged by (Countrywide's) unlawful and deceptive trade practices." She also argued that the fee was a sham, because the company had a secret policy of waiving the fee on request. Her class included 19,000 customers to whom Countrywide had charged the fee. Countrywide argued that the class lacked commonality because it sometimes charged a $30 fee and other times waived the fee for customers through the mail or over the Internet. Judge Daniel Foley noted that the lower court had performed a "rigorous analysis" and had correctly certified the class. "By examining Nakamura's pleadings, the circuit court was able to determine that the interests of the absent parties were fairly encompassed by Nakamura's claims," Judge Foley ruled. A copy of the opinion in Nakamura v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al., No. 27993 (Haw. Interm. App. Ct.), is available at: http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/ica/2010/ica27993.pdf The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by: Paul Alston, Esq. Bruce H. Wakuzawa, Esq. Peter Knapman, Esq. ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING 1001 Bishop St., Suite 1800 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: 808-524-1800 - and - George Van Buren, Esq. Robert Campbell, Esq. VAN BUREN CAMPBELL & SHIMIZU 745 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1950 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: 808-599-3800 The Defendant-Appellant, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., is represented by: Patricia J. McHenry, Esq. W. Keoni Shultz, Esq. CADES SCHUTTE LLP 1000 Bishop St., Suite 1200 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: 808-521-9200 - and - Brooks R. Brown, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., 21st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-788-5148 CRST VAN: Awarded $4.5 Mil. Defense Costs in EEOC Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Marcia Coyle at The National Law Journal reports that a federal judge in Iowa has ordered the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to pay $4.56 million in attorney fees and expenses to a Cedar Rapids trucking business after dismissing the agency's sexual harassment lawsuit. The lawyers leading's CRST Van Expedited's defense team in the lawsuit, which was filed in 2007, are: John H. Mathias, Jr., Esq. JENNER & BLOCK 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Telephone: 312-222-9350 - and - Kevin J. Visser, Esq. SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN, PLC 115 3rd Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266 Telephone: 319-366-7641 The fee award against the EEOC, while not unprecedented, is unusual, according to Mathias, and may be among the largest imposed by a federal court. The EEOC did not return a request for comment, but the agency has filed a notice of appeal of the lawsuit's dismissal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The agency had alleged in its suit that CRST's lead drivers or team drivers had subjected approximately 270 female drivers to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment and that the company had failed to correct and protect them. In a series of rulings last year, Chief Judge Linda Reade of the Northern District of Iowa dismissed all of the agency's claims. In a key ruling last April, she granted summary judgment on the claim that CRST tolerated a "pattern and practice" of sexual harassment against female drivers. "The EEOC has presented the court with anecdotal evidence to show that some members of CRST's management occasionally violated CRST's anti-sexual harassment policy by failing to respond appropriately to sexual harassment in the workplace," wrote the judge in April. "However, the EEOC has not compiled the failings of CRST's managers in any meaningful way to show that CRST has a pattern or practice of tolerating sexual harassment in its workplace." That was a "big finding," said Mr. Mathias. "Once the pattern and practice allegation was gone, you had 200 or so claims with nothing in common, no unifying characteristic." The EEOC's argument, said Judge Reade, "boils down to little more than bald assertions." The EEOC's litigation strategy, she added, "was untenable: CRST faced a continuously moving target of allegedly aggrieved persons, the risk of never-ending discovery and indefinite continuance of trial." In an order last August, Judge Reade dismissed the remaining claims of 67 women after finding the agency had "wholly abandoned its statutory duties" towards them by not conducting any investigation of their allegations. In the fee application, Jenner said its attorneys and staff billed a total of 18,005.75 hours on the case and sought $7,121,569.25 at rates ranging from $151 to $825 per hour for this work. Simmons attorneys and support staff billed a total of 2,507.66 hours at rates ranging from $95 to $295 per hour and sought a total of $502,977.02 for their work. Judge Reade on Feb. 9 said several factors warranted a large award: The company's counsel successfully obtained a dismissal of the entire case; the case involved hundreds of allegedly aggrieved individuals and there was potentially massive liability to CRST. She awarded the amount requested by Simmons for its work, but reduced Jenner's request to $3,501,394.63 after comparing the firm's rates to market rates prevailing in the local community. She also awarded reasonable out-of-pocket expenses totaling $463,071.25. In an earlier order, the court had granted CRST $92,842.21 in costs. EASTERN REGIONAL: Canadian Court Approves Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- VOCM.com reports that the law firm representing patients involved in a class action lawsuit against Eastern Health in the ER/PR testing scandal is pleased the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has approved their $17.5-million settlement. A lawyer representing the Plaintiff Class: Darlene P. Russell, Esq. CHES CROSBIE BARRISTERS 169 Water Street St. John's, NL A1C 1B1 CANADA Telephone: (709) 579-4000 says her clients are pleased that Justice Thompson rendered his decision in such a timely manner. The firm represents breast cancer patients who were affected by errors in ER/PR testing between 1997 and 2005. The firm says further details about how to apply for compensation will be available in the next few days. A copy of Mr. Justice Thompson's order approving the settlement in Doucette v. Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority, Docket No. 200601T2966CP (Sup. Ct. of Newfoundland and Labrador). ELI LILLY: Ontario Court Certifies Gambling Addict Class -------------------------------------------------------- Tom Blackwell at the National Post reports that an Ontario judge has certified a plaintiff class in a lawsuit by Parkinson's patients who say a commonly used drug turned them into "relentless" gambling addicts, causing some to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. The decision to certify the unusual class action is the first such ruling in Canada among several cases that have been launched over "dopamine-agonist" drugs, designed to counter stiffness, shaking and other symptoms of the nervous-system disease. A growing number of studies have linked the medicine to excessive gambling, sex addiction and other compulsive behaviour in a minority of Parkinson's sufferers. The certification judgment by Justice George Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court deals with Permax, which was taken off the market in 2007 because of other, heart-related side effects. About three dozen Parkinson's patients have already signed up with the class-action, said: Darcy Merkur, Esq. THOMSON, ROGERS 390 Bay Street, Suite 3100 Toronto, Ontario M5H 1W2 CANADA Telephone (416) 868-3100 who is one of the lawyers handling the lawsuit. Some had losses well into the six figures, and went as far as taking money from employers to feed their out-of control habits, he said. "The amounts varied, but there is a consistent claim of devastating financial losses: generally all their savings [gone], or as much as they could get their hands on." Justice Strathy also authorized an agreement among the parties to enter what is called a "pilot project," where the plaintiffs and defendants will work through the issues and possibly come up with an out-of-court settlement. The lawsuit claims more than $3-million in damages for each of the plaintiffs; ads are to be placed in newspapers Saturday calling for others to come forward, Mr. Merkur said. The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of Permax aggressively marketed the drug but failed to warn patients of the potential side effects. Laurel Swartz, a spokeswoman for Eli Lilly, the drug's developer, said the claims against it are "without merit" and notes that all drugs have side effects for some patients. Information about adverse effects was properly communicated by the firm to regulators and doctors, she said. Lilly will work on a possible settlement but, if that is not possible, will "vigorously defend" the lawsuit in court, said Ms. Swartz. Patients with the degenerative illness suffer from tremors, stiffness, impaired balance and muscle rigidity, generally brought on by a shortage of the neurotransmitter dopamine in their brains. Permax and other dopamine agonists essentially mimic the chemical's effect to lessen such symptoms. But dopamine also influences the pleasure and reward areas of the brain. Research indicates that Parkinson's patients who take the medicine are more likely than others with the disease or the general public to develop "impulse-control disorders" like problem gambling, said Dr. Michel Panisset, a neurologist at Montreal's Notre-Dame Hospital. One study published in 2008 by Calgary physicians found that one in 10 Parkinson's patients at a local clinic had gambling addictions of some sort, about five times the rate in the general population. "We've had a significant number of patients with these problems over the years," said Dr. Panisset. "It's the experience of every neurologist who treats these patients. People lose lots of money and get into personal, familial problems." Swapan Banerjee, the lead plaintiff in the Permax case, was not available for comment. According to the statement of claim filed by his lawyers, though, the Mississauga, Ont., man was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1997 and prescribed Permax in 2000. Soon after, the computer technician began gambling voraciously, eventually burning through over $200,000, twice re-mortgaging his condominium and causing a serious rift with his wife and children. "He gambled indiscriminately and relentlessly," said the statement. "He visited casinos and played the slot machines compulsively. He made impulsive and uncontrolled stock market transactions. He spent large sums of money on lottery tickets." When Mr. Banerjee finally stopped taking the drug in 2003, his gambling problem ended, too, the lawsuit says. Dr. Panisset said neurologists now warn patients and their spouses of the risk of gambling problems. If signs of such problems crop up, they are moved on to another drug, Levodopa, which has similar benefits. Physicians try to avoid using Levodopa in the early stages of the disease because of its side effects, said Dr. Panisset. Meanwhile, other class actions are in the works over two dopamine-agonist drugs still on the market, Mirapex and ReQuip. EXPEDIA INC: hotels.com Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- hotels.com, L.P., continues to defend an amended class action petition alleging that it charged customers "taxes" that exceeded the amount required, according to Expedia, Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On May 6, 2003, a purported class action was filed in Texas state court against hotels.com, L.P., captioned Mary Canales, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. hotels.com, L.P., No. DC-03-162 (District Court, 229th Judicial District, Duval County). The complaint, as amended, alleges that hotels.com breached its contract with its customers by charging customers "taxes" that exceed the amount required by or paid to the applicable taxing authorities and by charging customers "fees" that do not correspond to any specific services provided. On April 29, 2005, the court issued an order granting the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On Feb. 1, 2006, the court of appeals reversed the holding certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court. On April 20, 2006, Ms. Canales filed a fourth amended petition and a new motion for class certification. On June 23, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended class action petition. Plaintiff filed an amended motion to certify a class on Sept. 18, 2009. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on Sept. 18, 2009. Plaintiff filed a response and cross-moved for summary judgment on Oct. 22, 2009. These motions remain pending. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Second Amended Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc., continues to defend a second amended securities class action alleging failure to disclose material information concerning problems at the company's then-travel businesses. Beginning on Sept. 20, 2004, twelve purported shareholder class actions were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against IAC/InterActiveCorp and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. These cases arose out of IAC's Aug. 4, 2004 announcement of its earnings for the second quarter of 2004 and generally alleged that the value of IAC's stock was artificially inflated by pre-announcement statements about its financial results and forecasts that were false and misleading due to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose various problems faced by IAC's travel businesses. On Dec. 20, 2004, the district court consolidated the twelve lawsuits, appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and designated co-lead plaintiffs' counsel. The consolidated suit is styled In re IAC/InterActiveCorp Securities Litigation, No. 04-CV-7447 (S.D.N.Y.). On Dec. 21, 2004, IAC disclosed its plan to separate into two independent public companies. A new company, Expedia was incorporated under Delaware law in April 2005, to hold substantially all of IAC's travel and travel-related businesses. On Aug. 9, 2005, the Spin-Off was completed. Expedia discloses that while it is not a party to the litigation, under the terms of its Separation Agreement with IAC, Expedia has generally agreed to bear a portion of the costs and liabilities, if any, associated with any securities law litigation relating to conduct prior to the spin-off of Expedia from IAC of the businesses or entities that comprise Expedia following the Spin- Off. On Oct. 18, 2004, a related shareholder derivative action, Stuart Garber, Derivatively on Behalf of IAC/InterActiveCorp v. Barry Diller et al., No. 04-603416, was commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County) against certain of IAC's officers and directors. On Nov. 15, 2004, another related shareholder derivative action, Lisa Butler, Derivatively on Behalf of IAC/InterActiveCorp v. Barry Diller et al., No. 04-CV- 9067, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain of IAC's current and former directors. On Jan. 24, 2005, the federal district court consolidated the Butler case with the securities class action for pre-trial purposes only. On April 11, 2005, the district court issued a similar consolidation order in respect of the Garber case. On July 5, 2005, the plaintiffs in the related shareholder suits filed a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint against IAC (as a nominal defendant) and sixteen current or former officers or directors of IAC or its former travel business. The complaint, which is based upon factual allegations similar to those in the securities class action, purports to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution and indemnification. The complaint sought an order voiding the election of IAC's then Board of Directors, as well as damages in an unspecified amount, various forms of equitable relief, restitution, and disgorgement of remuneration received by the individual defendants from IAC. On Sept. 15, 2005, IAC and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss both the securities class action and the shareholder derivative suits. On Nov. 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions. On Jan. 6, 2006, the defendants filed reply papers in further support of the motions. The court issued an opinion and order (i) granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the securities class action, with leave to replead, and (ii) granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the shareholder derivative suits, with prejudice. On April 23, 2007, the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative suits filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the District Court's order of dismissal. On June 14, 2007, on consent of the parties, the appeal was withdrawn from active consideration by the Court of Appeals, subject to reinstatement by no later than March 31, 2008. On May 15, 2007, the plaintiffs in the securities class action filed a second amended complaint. The new pleading continues to allege that the defendants failed to disclose material information concerning problems at the company's then-travel businesses and to assert the same legal claims as its predecessor. On Aug. 15, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. A hearing on the motion has not been scheduled. No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Appeal on Settlement Approval Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the approval of the proposed settlement in a suit against Expedia(R) Washington remains pending, according to Expedia, Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Three objectors filed appeals before the Dec. 31, 2009 deadline. These appeals are pending. On Feb. 18, 2005, three actions were filed against Expedia(R) Washington: (1) C. Michael Nielsen et al. v. Expedia, Inc. et al., No. 05-2-02060-1 (Superior Court, King County), filed on Jan. 10, 2005; (2) Bruce Deaton et al., v. Expedia, Inc. et al., No. 05-2-02062-8 (Superior Court, King County), filed on Jan. 10, 2005 and (3) Jose Alba, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., No. 05-2-04533-7 (Superior Court, King County) filed Feb. 3, 2005. The actions were consolidated under the caption In re Expedia Hotel Taxes and Fees Litigation, No. 05-2-02060-1, pending in King County Superior Court. The consolidated complaint alleges that Expedia Washington is improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive practices in charging customers for taxes and fees. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all persons who were assessed a charge for "taxes/fees" when booking rooms through Expedia Washington. The complaint alleges violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and common-law conversion and seeks imposition of a constructive trust on monies received from the plaintiff class, as well as damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties. Six of the seven originally named plaintiffs have withdrawn from the suit. On May 7, 2008, the court entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to certify the class. Both sides filed Motions for Summary Judgment on April 27, 2009. On May 28, 2009, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, without the benefit of an actual trial on the merits. The plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was based on Expedia's website Terms of Use that were in effect from February 2003 through December 2006. The court concluded that the damages for the alleged breach are $184,470,451. On July 8, 2009, Expedia reached an agreement in principle on a proposed settlement of all claims with the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement and the settlement was approved on Dec. 1, 2009. Three objectors filed appeals before the Dec. 31, 2009 deadline. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W, Berman, Esq. Andrew Volk, Es.q Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com andrew@hbsslaw.com Expedia is represented by: James P. Karen, Esq. Jones Day 2727 N. Harwood St. Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: 214-969-5027 Fax: 214-969-5100 E-mail: jkaren@jonesday.com EXPEDIA INC: Court Approves Settlement in Suit Versus Hotwire ------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, has approved the settlement in the a class action against Hotwire, Inc., according to Expedia, Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On April 19, 2005, three actions filed against Hotwire were consolidated and now are pending under the caption Bruce Deaton v. Hotwire, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-05-437631, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The consolidated complaint, which was amended on Feb. 17, 2006, alleges that Hotwire is improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive practices in charging customers for taxes and fees. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all persons who were assessed a charge for "taxes/fees" when booking rooms through Hotwire. The amended complaint alleges violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and breach of contract, and seeks imposition of a constructive trust on monies received from the plaintiff class, as well as damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties. On March 15, 2007, the court certified a class of all residents of the United States to whom Hotwire charged "taxes/fees" for the facilitation of reservations for stand-alone hotel rooms on its website. The court has not yet required that Hotwire provide notice to the potential class members. The trial on plaintiff's Section 17200 claim that was set for the week of Jan. 12, 2009, was postponed and a new trial date was not set. The parties have reached a settlement that was approved by the court on Dec. 8, 2009. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in New York Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a suit alleging improper charging remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Dec. 8, 2008, a putative class action was filed in federal court in New York State against Expedia, hotels.com and Hotwire. Similar lawsuits were filed at or about the same time against Priceline and Travelocity. The suit is styled Matthew R. Chiste, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 08 CV 10676 (S.D.N.Y.) The complaint alleges that the defendants are improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive practices in charging customers for taxes and fees. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all persons who booked a hotel room in New York City through the defendants. The complaint asserts claims for deceptive business practices, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount, but exceeding $5,000,000. Defendants' motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is pending before the court. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Canadian Subsidiary Continues to Face Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc.'s Canadian subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit alleging that disclosures related to "taxes and service fees" were deceptive, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The suit was filed on June 26, 2009, against Expedia Canada Corporation in Ontario, Canada. The suit is styled Magill v. Expedia Canada Corporation and Expedia.ca, CV-09-381919-00LP (Ontario Superior Court of Justice). The complaint asserts claims under the Competition Act and Consumer Protection Act as well as claims of unjust enrichment, restitution, constructive trust, accounting and disgorgement and breach of contract. It seeks damages in the amount of C$50,000,000 for the class as well as interest, fees and alternate damages measures. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit by Los Angeles City --------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc., continues to defend a purported class action filed by the city of Los Angeles, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Dec. 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported class action in California state court against a number of internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Expedia Washington and Hotwire. City of Los Angeles, California, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. BC326693 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County). The complaint alleges that the defendants are improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes. The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class of all California cities and counties that have enacted uniform transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective on or after Dec. 30, 1990. The complaint alleges violation of those ordinances, violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and common-law conversion. The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are subject to hotel occupancy taxes on the hotel rate charged to consumers and imposition of a constructive trust on all monies owed by the defendants to the government, as well as disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties. On July 26, 2007, the court signed an order staying the lawsuit until the cities have exhausted their administrative remedies. The case is coordinated with the cases in San Diego, Anaheim and San Francisco. Los Angeles issued assessments of $15.7 million against Expedia, $14.8 million against hotels.com and $4.4 million against Hotwire on September 9, 2009. An administrative hearing challenging the assessments was held on Dec. 3, 2009. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit by Findlay ------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Oct. 25, 2005, the city of Findlay, Ohio filed a purported state wide class action in state court against a number of internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia Washington. The suit is City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 2005-CV-673 (Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County, Ohio). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint includes claims for violation of that ordinance, violation of the consumer protection act, conversion imposition of a constructive trust and declaratory relief. On Nov. 22, 2005, defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the case. On July 26, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The court has consolidated this lawsuit with the lawsuit filed by the cities of Columbus and Dayton, Ohio. On Feb. 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint adding the city of Toledo, city of Northwood, city of Rossford, city of Maumee, city of Perrysburg, Perrysburg Township and Springfield Township as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. On July 7, 2009, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority as a plaintiff. The court's prior ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss has been applied to the joined jurisdictions. The court has held that the defendants are not directly obligated to pay the hotel occupancy taxes at issue, but may be liable for taxes collected but not remitted. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Parties in Georgia Suit Agree to Mediation ------------------------------------------------------- The suit City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 4:05-CV-249, has been stayed after the parties agreed to participate in mediation, according to Expedia Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Nov. 18, 2005, the city of Rome, Georgia, Hart County, Georgia, and the city of Cartersville, Georgia filed a purported state wide class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division, against a number of internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. The suit is City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 4:05-CV-249 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the county and cities the hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of excise and sales and use tax ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, declaratory relief and injunctive relief. The complaint seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified amount. On Feb. 6, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On May 9, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding 16 more municipalities and political subdivisions as named plaintiffs. On May 10, 2007, the court stayed the litigation, concluding that the plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies before continuing to litigate their tax claims. On July 10, 2009, the court lifted the stay of the litigation. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on Feb. 8, 2010. The case has now been stayed based upon the parties' agreement to participate in mediation. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: No Final Judgment Amount in San Antonio City Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The final amount of the judgment against the Expedia, Inc., in the matter City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., SA06CA0381, has yet to be determined, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative statewide class action in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, against a number of internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia Washington. The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of that ordinance, common-law conversion, and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement. On Oct. 30, 2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that defendants "control hotels" and awarding approximately $15 million for historical damages against the Expedia companies (Expedia, hotels.com and Hotwire). The jury also found that defendants were not liable for conversion or punitive damages. The final amount of the judgment against the Expedia companies has not been determined. In further proceedings, the court will determine, among other things, whether the tax is actually due on the amounts that the online companies retained for their services and the amount, if any, of penalties and interest, which could be significant. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Gallup City's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- City of Gallup, New Mexico's partial motion for summary judgment in a putative statewide class action against Expedia, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On May 17, 2006, the city of Gallup, New Mexico filed a putative statewide class action in state court against a number of internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia Washington. The suit is City of Gallup, New Mexico, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CIV-06-0549 JC/RLP (U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico). The case was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006. The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances, conversion, and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement. On April 18, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss its own lawsuit. On July 6, 2007, the city of Gallup refiled its lawsuit. The defendants answered the complaint on Aug. 27, 2007. Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2009. The court certified the class on July 7, 2009. Plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary judgment, which is pending. The court's order approving class notice was issued on Oct. 22, 2009. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Amended Suit by Columbus City -------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc., continues to defend an amended consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio filed by the city of Columbus, Ohio and the city of Dayton, Ohio, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On August 8, 2006, the city of Columbus, Ohio and the city of Dayton, Ohio, filed a putative statewide class action in federal court against a number of internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia Washington. The suit is City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 2:06-CV-00677. The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to counties and cities in Ohio hotel accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances, unjust enrichment, violation of the doctrine of money had and received, conversion, declaratory judgment, and seeks imposition of a constructive trust. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 25, 2006 and a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio on Sept. 27, 2006. The case was transferred to the Northern District of Ohio and defendant's motion to dismiss was granted in part, consistent with the ruling in the City of Findlay, Ohio lawsuit. On February 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint adding the city of Toledo, city of Northwood, city of Rossford, city of Maumee, city of Perrysburg, Perrysburg Township and Springfield Township as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. On July 7, 2009, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority as a plaintiff. The court's prior ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss has been applied to the joined jurisdictions. The court has held that the defendants are not directly obligated to pay the hotel occupancy taxes at issue, but may be liable for taxes collected but not remitted. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Kentucky Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of the suit against Expedia, Inc., filed by Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Sept. 21, 2006, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government filed a putative statewide class action in federal court against a number of internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia Washington. The suit is Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 3:06CV-480-R (W.D. Ky.) The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay the counties and cities in Kentucky hotel accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, imposition of a constructive trust, and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On Dec. 22, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied on Aug. 10, 2007. On Oct. 26, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or certification of interlocutory appeal. On April 16, 2008, the Lexington- Fayette Urban County Government filed an intervening complaint, joining the lawsuit. On May 16, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss Lexington- Fayette complaint. On Sept. 30, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion for reconsideration of defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in its entirety. On Dec. 22, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Nassau County's Suit Remanded by Second Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has remanded the putative statewide class action against Expedia, Inc., to determine whether class certification is appropriate, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Oct. 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York filed a putative statewide class action in federal court against a number of internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia Washington. The suit is Nassau County, New York, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., (E.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay cities, counties and local governments in New York hotel accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances. The complaint purports to assert claims for violations of those ordinances, as well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and imposition of a constructive trust. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 31, 2007. On Aug. 17, 2007, the court granted defendants' motion dismissing the lawsuit due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. On Aug. 11, 2009, the Second Circuit remanded the case for the district court to determine whether class certification is appropriate. The court has ordered the parties to proceed with class certification. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Settlement Reached in Jefferson City Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- A settlement has been reached in a putative class action against Expedia, Inc., filed by Jefferson City, Missouri, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On June 27, 2007, Jefferson City, Missouri filed a putative class action in state court against a number of internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. The suit is Jefferson City v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 07AC-CC0055 (Circuit Court of Cole County). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of that ordinance, violation of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duties, constructive trust, and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount. On Nov. 5, 2007, the defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit. On June 19, 2008, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Settlement has been reached. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Goodlettsville's Class Certification Motion Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The city of Goodlettsville, Tennessee's motion for class certification in a suit against Expedia, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On June 2, 2008, the cities of Goodlettsville and Brentwood, Tennessee filed a putative class action in federal court against a number of internet travel companies, including Expedia, hotels.com, and Hotwire. The suit is styled City of Goodlettsville and City of Brentwood v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 3-08-0561 (M.D. Tenn.). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the cities hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the city of Brentwood. On March 31, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants' answers were filed on April 24, 2009. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Lyndhurst's Appeal of Dismissal Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The appeal of the Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, on the dismissal of a putative class action against Expedia, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On June 18, 2008, the township of Lyndhurst filed a putative class action in federal court against a number of internet travel companies, including Expedia, hotels.com, and Hotwire. The suit is Township of Lyndhurst v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 2:08-CV- 03033-JLL-CCC (D. N.J.). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the township hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Aug. 19, 2008. On March 18, 2009, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Plaintiff's appeal is pending. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: IAC Dismissed from Jacksonville's Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Expedia, Inc., and the city of Jacksonville, Florida, have agreed to dismiss IAC/InterActiveCorp from the suit, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On July 28, 2006, the city of Jacksonville, Florida filed a putative class action in state court against a number of internet travel companies, including Expedia, hotels.com, and Hotwire. The lawsuit was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In February 2009, the court gave leave for plaintiffs to refile its complaint. Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed on March 10, 2009. The suit is City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com LP, et. al., 2006-CA- 005393-XXXX-MA, CV-B (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city the tourist and convention development taxes as required by state and municipal ordinance. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On April 8, 2009, defendants filed their answers. The parties have agreed to dismiss IAC. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. EXPEDIA INC: Wants Arkansas Court to Dismiss Pine Bluff Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Expedia, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss a class action filed by Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Sept. 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County filed a class action against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc., hotels.com, L.P. and Hotwire, Inc. The suit is captioned Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas, and others similarly situated v. Hotels.com LP, et. al. CV-2009-946-5 (In the Circuit Court of Jefferson, Arkansas). The complaint alleges that defendants have failed to collect and/or pay taxes under hotel tax occupancy ordinances. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel company. The company makes travel products and services available from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and destination service providers. The company's portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA (Venere). The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and transactions, through various media and advertising offerings. FACEBOOK INC: Calif. Suit Complains About New Privacy Settings -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Facebook users say the site's new privacy settings are "materially deceptive, confusing and ineffective" at guarding personal information from prying eyes. The federal class action claims that since November 2009 the new settings have provided less control over personal information, exposing their Facebook friends, pictures, organizations they support and products they use to snooping by virtually anyone, "including hackers, scammers, criminals, sociopaths and the like." The new privacy settings are "difficult to use" and are not "designed to explain how a user can best protect his information and data," the class says. "Rather, the default privacy settings are all set at the minimum level of protection," exposing Facebook users to "identity theft, harassment, embarrassment, intrusion and all types of cybercrime." Facebook also makes people's personal information available to third parties such as Google, to profit through targeted advertisements based on information in Facebook profiles. The complaint quotes "Internet expert" Jason Calacanis as saying, "Yes, Facebook is tricking us into exposing all our items so that those personal items get indexed in search engines -- including Facebook's -- in order to drive more traffic to Facebook." The class demands an injunction requiring Facebook to implement stricter default privacy settings; a live chat system where people can get answers to their privacy questions; and an on-site video to walk people through all privacy settings, "explaining what they mean and what the minimum settings should be to keep users safe." The class also seeks restitution of the value of their lost privacy, in violation of the Electronic Data Privacy Act, in the form of either a return to Facebook's previous privacy settings or disgorgement of profits made from revealing their personal information. A copy of the Complaint in Silverstri, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00429 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/16/FacebookCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: David N. Lake, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE 16130 Ventura Blvd., Suite 650 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: 818-788-5100 - and - Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. FELGOISE LAW FIRM 261 Old York Rd., Suite 423 Jenkintown, PA 19001-2616 Telephone: 215-985-0500 FIRST HEALTH: Appeal and Cross Appeal Filed in Class Action Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood at The Madison County Record reports that even though a Madison County judge approved a class action settlement worth $1.25 million, legal maneuvers continue in a case filed over improper Preferred Provider Organization discounts (PPO). Objector Kathleen Roche, a Swansea chiropractor who opposed the settlement, filed notice of an appeal, asking the appellate court to throw it out Feb. 2. Lead plaintiffs Lawrence Shipley and Richard Coy filed their cross appeal notice six days later, asking the court disqualify Ms. Roche's attorney, Richard Burke. Mr. Burke had formerly worked for the same law firm as the class counsel -- Robert Schmieder II -- before leaving it in 2007. Burke has sparred several times since with his former firm, now called LakinChapman LLC. Ms. Roche had tried, unsuccessfully, to block the settlement between the class and First Health, alleging that it did not financially compensate class members. She also argued that it would scuttle a nearly a identical suit she has pending in St. Clair County. She filed her objection in April 2009. The Madison County class acction, led by Shipley and Coy, alleged that the insurance company took PPO discounts it was not entitled to. The suit's settlement calls for First Health to hand over $1 million to non-profits in Illinois in order to further medical education. Each lead plaintiff is set to receive $10,000. LakinChapman will be paid $650,000 in legal fees. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack held several fairness hearings in the case. He entered a judgment last month approving the settlement. Judge Stack had previously allowed Burke to continue representing Roche in a May 2009 order. The cross appeal asks the appellate court to end Mr. Burke's involvement in the case. The class action is one several filed against insurance companies over PPO discounts. Shipley and Coy have each helmed several. Eric Brandfonbrener represents First Health. Ms. Roche's appeal was due in Mount Vernon Feb. 16. The case is Madison case number 04-L-1055. HUNTER HOLMES: Settles Employee Discrimination Suit for $5 Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Pellerano at CBS affiliate WTVR Channel 6 in Richmond, Va., reports that a lawsuit stemming from a hospital's awards bonus program under which 2,000 African-American workers said their white counterparts were being recognized more frequently -- and getting more money than they were -- has been settled, in principle, for $5 million. Nurses Beverly Hatcher and Anniemarie Harrison believe the award system will now be fair for everyone at Hunter Holmes McGuire Richmond VA Medical Center. Ms. Hatcher, who served in the U.S. Army for 10 years and has worked at the hospital for 17, claims she had been overlooked for going above and beyond her responsibilities since 1993 compared to her white counterparts. Her breaking point was in 2002. She picked up a patient who had wandered off, but says she didn't get the recognition she thought she deserved "And I went to the union and became a steward and because of that I was like enough. Someone has to be the voice around here", says Ms. Hatcher At about the same time, Harrison, an Iraqi war veteran and a nursing coordinator at the hospital says she had heard similar complaints from her staff. "As I made my rounds throughout the hospital I could hear the staff talking 'Betty sue just got an increase in her paycheck, and I didn't. What's the reason?" says Ms. Harrison. From there, a class action lawsuit was filed against the hospital. On Tuesday, after almost ten years, the hospital settled. Not admitting they discriminated against the workers, but say they could not find the proper documents to defend themselves. They went on to say in a statement "Discrimination is not tolerated at the Department of Veterans Affairs". Mmes. Hatcher and Harrison say this lawsuit will boost morale for all employees at the hospital for years to come, and make care for the patients even better. LIBERTY MEDIA: Sued for Allowing Directors to Convert Shares ------------------------------------------------------------ Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that Liberty Media let directors trade in their shares for a more valuable consideration in the company after it merged with DirectTV, shareholders say in a class action in Chancery Court. Liberty Media Chairman John Malone and his wife transferred their shares for more than $160 million of the new "super-voting stock" that carries 15 votes per share, according to the complaint. Lead plaintiff Blackthorn Partners is the largest public shareholder of Liberty Media, with 110,816 of the company's 1.8 million shares. Blackthorn says it and other public shareholders represent 2.6 percent of the eligible aggregate vote. The class represents "a diverse and disaggregated group of small stakeholders unlikely to mount a concerted opposition or, for that matter, to understand fully the complicated deal structure" that gave directors an unfair advantage, according to the complaint. In the first phase of the Liberty Media "split-off," the company converted 90 percent of each share into a corresponding share of stock in newly formed Liberty Entertainment, which had a 57 percent interest in DirectTV Group, according to the complaint. Blackthorn says Liberty Entertainment and DTV became wholly owned subsidiaries of a new parent company called DirectTV in the second phase of the transaction. Mr. Malone and his wife then transferred their shares in Liberty "for new DTV series B super-voting stock carrying 15 votes per share and numerous express and implied consent rights," according to the complaint. The new stock allegedly gave the Malones $160 million in considerations not shared with public shareholders. Blackthorn says public shareholders received new DTV series A common stock, which carry only one vote per share and lack the valuable consent rights. "The disparate allocation of consideration within Series B class occurred with no procedural safeguards whatsoever, leaving the LMDIB [public shareholders] without voice, powerless to vote down the transaction and with no recourse other than to seek redress from this court," according to the complaint. By contrast, Blackthorn says, Mr. Malone had obtained effective control over DTV and was freed from a premium cap. "Malone has been paid handsomely to augment his control over valuable assets and to position himself to capitalize on a future transaction, free from a premium cap and any concern over other, super-voting shareholders," according to the complaint. "None of this valuable consideration, negotiated by Malone for Malone with the passive (if not active) assistance of directors whose future and fortunes are inextricably intertwined with Malone's, was shared with the LMDIB public shareholders who had no one representing their interests at the deal table," according to the complaint. Blackthorn says other Liberty Media directors were allowed to convert their stock to avoid certain tax consequences. One director, Robert Bennett, took in more than $4 million worth of shares, and all of the other Liberty Media directors received "accelerated vesting of options through which they collectively realized over $38 million." Liberty Media's financial adviser, Goldman Sachs & Co., did not advise on whether the transaction was fair, according to the complaint. "Goldman Sachs' objectivity was compromised by the fact that the flat fee paid for its work was conditioned on the transaction closing," the complaint states. "Above all, Goldman Sachs explicitly did not consider or offer an opinion on the fairness of the consideration ultimately received [by all of the shareholders]." The class seeks compensatory and recessionary damages, disgorgement, and equitable redistribution, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing. A copy of the Shareholders' Verified Class Action Complaint in Blackthorn Partners, L.P. v. Malone, et al., Case No. 5260 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/16/Malone.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Montgomery Donaldson, Esq. Lisa Zwally Brown, Esq. MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP 1105 N. Market St., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: 302-504-7840 - and - Julie H. Chelius, Esq. Peter Breslauer, Esq. John G. Papianou, Esq. MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP 123 South Broad St. Avenue of the Arts Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: 215-772-1500 NORTH CAROLINA: Suit Complains About Mental Health Funding Cuts --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that North Carolina's plan to cut 30 percent or more from funding to care for mentally ill people with developmental disabilities in their homes is not only illegal, it will cost the state more money in the end by forcing them into institutions, a class action claims in Federal Court. Attorneys for the two named plaintiffs, who live independently with around-the-clock assistance from aides, said the decision funding cuts to providers of supervised residential living services will kill such services in a five- county region of the Piedmont. The class claims the decision by defendant Dan Coughlin, CEO of the Piedmont Behavioral Healthcare Local Management Entity, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief until alternative funding can be found to keep the plaintiffs at home and their 24-hour supervision in place. In North Carolina, adults dually diagnosed with mental retardation and mental illness are part of a target population eligible to receive state mental health, development disability and substance abuse services funds. Both named plaintiffs fall into this category. Clinton L's diagnoses include schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, and moderate mental retardation. Timothy B's diagnoses include intermittent explosive disorder, major depressive disorder, epilepsy, and severe mental retardation. Despite being longtime recipients of state support for their care, neither was notified of the impending funding change, nor given a chance to appeal it, the complaint states. Compounding the situation is that while some alternative funding for in-home care would still be available to the plaintiffs even after the cuts, it wouldn't be enough to keep them in their homes, and once they're been institutionalized, they'll loss access to those funds. The attorneys said they wrote to Mr. Coughlin and his co-defendant, North Carolina Health Secretary Lanier Cansler, demanding postponement of the funding cuts, but received no response. A copy of the Complaint in Clinton L., et al. v. Cansler, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00123 (M.D.N.C.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/15/NCMental.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Rittelmeyer, Esq. Jennifer L. Bills, Esq. Andrew B. Strickland, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS NC 2626 Glenwood Ave., Suite 550 Raleigh, NC 27608 Telephone: 919-856-2195 NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Labaton Sucharow Secures C$28 Mil. Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP announced this week that NovaGold Resources Inc. has agreed to a C$28 million cash settlement of the class action lawsuit arising from allegations that investors were misled about the economic feasibility of NovaGold's largest mining project, Galore Creek. The New Orleans Employees' Retirement System is the Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that, between October 25, 2005, and November 26, 2006, NovaGold violated federal securities laws by disseminating a series of materially false and misleading statements relating to the accuracy and reliability of an independent study regarding the economic feasibility of its largest mining project, Galore Creek. The complaint alleges that internal cost estimates were more than double the costs stated in the report, prompting NovaGold to shut down the mine. This settlement resolves the claims of all of NovaGold's shareholders who purchased shares on the American Stock Exchange and Toronto Stock Exchange, pending approval of the U.S. Federal Court for the Southern District of New York and the Canadian courts presiding over class actions pending in that country. Shareholders are represented by Sutts, Strosberg LLP in the Canadian actions. The lawyer overseeing the litigation: Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: 212-907-0700 stated: "We are very pleased with this result. Lead Plaintiff's aggressive prosecution of this matter has resulted in an exceptional global resolution in little over a year from the filing of the Lead Plaintiff's consolidated complaint. The size and expedience of this result is a testament to the significant impact institutional investors like New Orleans have in shareholder litigation." The New Orleans Employees' Retirement System is represented by the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP. Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country's premier law firms representing institutional investors in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for over 45 years, seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at http://www.labaton.com/ SCHENECTADY COUNTY: 2d Cir. Upholds Fee Cuts in Strip-Search Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a reduced attorney fee award of $461,000 to former detainees who claimed they were unconstitutionally strip-searched at the Schenectady County Jail. When the county settled the class action for $2.5 million, the plaintiffs sought 26 percent of that amount, or $650,000, in attorney fees. The class members challenged the district court's decision to grant attorney fees on an hourly rate, rather than as a percentage of the settlement. They said their attorneys spent more than 1,000 hours working on the case. The county had maintained that pre-trial detainees were merely "required to change into jail uniforms in the presence of a corrections officer of the same sex," and that the county jail had no formal strip-searching policy. Nonetheless, it agreed to pay the class members $2.5 million and to alter some of its practices. The class members sought $650,000 in attorney fees, based on a percentage of the settlement. U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe instead calculated fees using a modified lodestar method, basing the fees on the attorneys' normal hourly rates. He awarded class members about $461,000 -- or 13 percent of the settlement -- which included about $343,000 in attorney fees, $10,000 in costs and $107,000 in administrative expenses. The Manhattan-based federal appeals court saw no abuse of discretion in Judge Sharpe's decision to use the modified lodestar formula instead of a percentage approach. "Civil rights cases may or may not raise the same danger of 'routine overcompensation' for risk that has troubled this court in the context of 'mega-fund' class actions," Judge Debra Ann Livingston wrote, "but it is because of the case-specific nature of the fee award inquiry that we have been loath to disturb the determinations of district courts in this area." A copy of the Honorable Judge Debra Ann Livingston's Feb. 16, 2010, decision in McDaniel, et al. v. County of Schenectady, et al., No. 07-cv-5580 (2nd Cir.), is available at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?531c The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH III, PC 1040 Riverfront Center P.O. Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 Telephone: 518-434-1718 - and - Jason J. Rozger, Esq. Bruce E. Menken, Esq. BERANBAUM, MENKEN, BEN-ASHER & BIERMAN LLP 80 Pine St. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: 212-509-1616 - and - Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA 507 C Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: 202-789-3960 - and - Ary E. Mason, Esq. THE MASON LAW FIRM 1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-429-2290 The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: William G. Greagan, Esq. GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP 8 Southwoods Blvd., Suite 300 Albany, NY 12211-2364 Telephone: 518-463-5400 - and - Philip K. Howard, Esq. Jennifer O. Farina, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Ave. New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: 212-841-1000 SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Won't Reward Kenmore Dryer Class Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a Tennessee man is not entitled to $246,000 in attorney fees for his $3,000 claim over Sears' stainless steel Kenmore dryers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled. "The plaintiff's effort to exalt his meager claim into a sprawling nationwide class action was a flop," Judge Richard Posner wrote. Steven Thorogood failed to get a class action certified over the Kenmore dryers sold by Sears Roebuck, which were allegedly touted as having "stainless steel" drums, though the drums contained another material. Under Tennessee law, he could only recover $3,000 for his individual claim. Sears offered him $20,000, including attorney fees, to settle the case. But the district court ruled that Mr. Thorogood wasn't entitled to attorney fees and dismissed the case as moot, since the $20,000 offer exceeded the $3,000 claim. Mr. Thorogood insisted that the $246,000 in fees was a worthwhile investment, because Sears' offer would help other buyers of "stainless steel" Kenmores, should they sue. Judge Posner viewed the offer differently. "The defendant's offer of $20,000 was intended to get rid of a nuisance claim," Judge Posner explained. "The making of an offer was not a vindication of the plaintiff's theory of liability, an acknowledgement that it had some potential merit. "Furthermore, the $246,000 in fees that the plaintiff seeks to be reimbursed for were incurred in attempting to maintain the suit as a class action; no sane person incurs fees in that amount to prosecute a claim worth at most $3,000." Judge Posner noted that Mr. Thorogood's bid for class certification was a "flop," and that "Sears should not have to bear the entire cost of the flop." "The district judge did not abuse his discretion in assessing the benefit to the class that we resoundingly ordered be decertified at $0," Judge Posner wrote. A copy of the Honorable Judge Richard Posner's Feb. 12, 2010, decision in Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, No. 09-3005 (7th Cir.), is available at: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/V91BBTB6.pdf The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Clint Krislov, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES LTD. 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago IL 60606 Telephone: 312-606-0500 Sears, Roebuck and Company, the Defendant-Appellee, is represented by: Phil Oliss, Esq. SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY LLP 4900 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: 216-479-8448 SOUTHWESTERN BELL: Plaintiffs Sue Tex. Sup. Ct. to Speed Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that plaintiffs in an $80 million class action against Southwestern Bell Telephone say they are stuck in a legal "black hole" because the Texas Supreme Court refuses to rule on a more than 4-year-old appeal. Marketing On Hold, which audits telephone services, and the Harris County Hospital District sued the Texas Supreme Court's nine justices in Federal Court to compel a decision. The plaintiffs filed the original complaint in 2000, alleging that the phone company overcharged more than 6,000 customers. The current interlocutory appeal process began with an appeal more than 7 years ago, in which Southwestern Bell questioned the trial court's certification of the class. The appellate court affirmed certification, and the question has been pending before the Texas Supreme Court for more than 4 years, the plaintiffs say. "Plaintiffs are stuck in a black hole with the inability to appeal their constitutional deprivation to the United States Supreme Court while they are frozen in an interlocutory appeal," the complaint states. The case is stayed until the court rules, so discovery cannot go forward. The plaintiffs say they are worried that critical evidence will be destroyed because Southwestern Bell keeps customer billing records for only "12 years or less." "The longer the plaintiffs' case is delayed, the greater the likelihood that records will be destroyed, especially records not yet discovered or requested," the complaint states. The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief stating that the delay has deprived the class of its constitutional rights. A copy of the Complaint in Marketing On Hold, Inc., et al. v. Jefferson, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00104 (W.D. Tex.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/16/Stay.pdf Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Marketing on Hold. Inc. d/b/a Southwest Tariff Analyst, No. 05-0748 (Tex.), is the interlocutory appeal in which the Plaintiffs have been awaiting a ruling for more than four years. Marketing On Hold, Inc. d/b/a Southwestern Tariff Analyst, et al. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Cause No. 2000-05-001931-8 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Cameron Cty.), is the lawsuit filed nearly ten years ago. Marketing On Hold, Inc., the Plaintiff, is represented by: Thomas R. Bray, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS R. BRAY 1431 Wirt Rd., Suite 140 Houston, TX 77055 Telephone: 713-827-1760 - and - J. Marcus Hill, Esq. HILL & HILL, P.C. 1770 St. James Place, Suite 115 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: 713-688-6318 Harris County Hospital District, the Plaintiff, is represented by: Vince Ryan, Esq. Randall Raymond Smidt, Esq. Terence O'Rourke, Esq. OFFICE OF THE HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY 1310 Prairie Suite 880 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-755-5585 TOYOTA MOTOR: Files Sudden Acceleration Injury Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert J. Nelson, Esq., of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, says that Chin Lin, formerly of Arcadia, California, along with his wife Pei Yen Cheng and daughter Jessica Lin, today filed a lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corporation seeking compensation for injuries they suffered when their 2005 Toyota Camry suddenly accelerated and crashed. The accident rendered Mr. Lin a quadriplegic. "The complaint charges that Toyota for years was aware its vehicles were susceptible to incidents of sudden, unintended acceleration, posing a significant risk of injury and death to vehicle occupants, other motorists, and pedestrians," stated plaintiffs' counsel Robert J. Nelson. "Yet, Toyota never made any significant changes to improve the acceleration system and the electrical system, in spite of the availability of several safe and inexpensive alternative designs and feasible modifications." Since 2001, the electronic throttle system in most Toyota vehicles, including the 2005 Toyota Camry driven by Mr. Lin, has relied on sensors, microprocessors and electronic motors instead of a mechanical linkage, such as a steel cable, to connect the accelerator pedal to the engine throttle plate. The 2005 Toyota Camry, which Toyota has not yet recalled, and millions of other Toyota vehicles were not equipped with a safety feature, known as 'brake-to-idle' override. The feature, used by other automotive manufacturers, enables drivers to override the electronic throttle and control the vehicle in the event of a sudden unintended acceleration. "Toyota's failure to incorporate the 'brake-to-idle' safety feature in the Camry driven by Mr. Lin, the complaint alleges, played a direct role in the catastrophic accident that occurred," explained Mr. Nelson. The complaint was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court as two of the primary defendants, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., are both California corporations with their headquarters located in Los Angeles County. Description of the Toyota Sudden Unintended Acceleration Accident As set forth in the complaint, on March 1, 2007, Plaintiff Chin Lin (age 57) and his wife, Plaintiff Pei-Yen Cheng (age 58) were driving their daughter, Plaintiff Jessica Lin (age 22) to an interview at the University of Pacific, where Jessica hoped to attend school. The family was riding in their 2005 Toyota Camry and each of them were wearing their seatbelts. Chin Lin was driving, Pei-Yen Cheng was in the front passenger seat, and Jessica Lin was in the back seat. They were in the left lane proceeding south on Interstate 5 in California. The car pulled slightly to the left so Mr. Lin straightened it out, then quite suddenly, the vehicle shot off like an arrow. The brakes failed and Mr. Lin lost control as the vehicle crossed to the right side of the highway, went over the shoulder, and flew airborne off the side of the highway. The Camry rolled over several times and landed at the bottom of a hill where it finally came to a stop upside-down on its hood. Mr. Lin suffered grievous injuries, including fractured vertebrae in his cervical spine, rendering him quadriplegic. He now requires 24-hour care and will never work again. Pei Yen Cheng suffered head trauma, fractured ribs, and other injuries. Their daughter Jessica Lin also suffered back and other injuries. Prior to the subject incident, Mr. Lin was a mechanical engineer in a managerial position in which he supervised other engineers in the design and building of propulsion systems for cargo ships. Legal Resources For Drivers And Passengers Injured In Toyota Sudden Acceleration Accidents Lieff Cabraser represents persons injured in accidents involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles that suddenly accelerated across America. If you would like to learn more about your legal rights please visit: http://www.usautoinjurylaw.com/cases/defects/acceleration/toyota-lexus.htm or call us toll free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney Todd Walburg. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney law firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972. We have offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. Lieff Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which includes representing persons injured and families of loved ones who died in auto accidents due to the negligence of other drivers or manufacturing defects. Since 2003, The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation. Learn more at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/ WEST PUBLISHING: McGuireWoods Gets Zilch from $49 Mil. Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wed., Feb. 17, 2010, could not have been a happy one for the litigators at McGuireWoods, Ashby Jones at The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reports. The firm's lawyers had logged thousands of hours of work over a half-decade. The work had helped forge a $49 million settlement in an antitrust class-action against BAR/BRI parent company West Publishing and Kaplan Inc. And now, Los Angeles federal judge Manuel Real was telling them they would recover no fees for the case. They could recover some $1.26 million in costs, but there would be no fees. That's right. The firm could recover no part of the $12 million it thought it was owed. The BAR/BRI class action, with the stroke of a pen, became one fairly successful pro-bono case. How'd this happen? It's interesting. Let's step back and get you up to speed. Back in 2005, a group of folks who had used test-prep courses provided by BAR/BRI or Kaplan sued the companies, alleging the pair had agreed to divvy up the markets for LSAT and bar review courses. In exchange for a promise from BAR/BRI that it would get out of the LSAT-prep market, the allegation went, Kaplan agreed to stay out of the bar-prep market. This, plaintiffs contended, constituted a violation of the antitrust laws, namely Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. See http://is.gd/8xQrafor a May 2006 write-up about the Complaint from Womble Carlyle's Antitrust and Distribution Law Blog. In early 2007, a $49 million settlement was reached. But before the settlement was approved, it emerged that five of the seven plaintiffs acting as class representatives had an agreement with their lawyers at McGuireWoods which provided that they'd each receive so-called incentive payments after the settlement was approved. The agreement stipulated that the five would get payments on a sliding scale; the more taken in by the class, the more they'd each get. Specifically, the agreements provided that if the case settled for $500,000 or more, the representatives would get $10,000. The payments would go up as the settlement figure went up, but were capped if the settlement figure reached $10 million. Attorneys for other plaintiffs in the class objected to the settlement on these and other grounds. The arrangements created a conflict of interest, the objectors argued, between the class representatives and other members of the class as the reps might not have much incentive to drive the settlement figure higher once the $10 million threshold was reached. Judge Real agreed with the objectors, and nixed the incentive payments. But also notable was what Real didn't do. He didn't limit the amount McGuireWoods could collect. Nor did he grant the objectors' attorneys any fees. So those attorneys appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In April of last year, the Ninth Circuit questioned the ability of McGuireWoods to recover anything -- see http://is.gd/8xQLo-- saying: Under California law, "[a]n attorney cannot recover fees for such conflicting representation." [Citation omitted] "An attorney may claim fees only for services provided before the conflict arose and the ethical breach occurred." Id. We express no opinion on the impact of these principles on the fees request in this case, but it is apparent that they are, at least, implicated. . . . [T]he conflict of interest inhering in the incentive agreements did not just happen, nor was it a conflict that developed beyond the control or perception of class counsel. It was inserted into the retainer agreement. The district court should have . . . considered what effect, if any, the ethics implications of a conflict of interest created by the incentive agreements had on class counsel's request for an award of attorney's fees. Therefore, we affirm approval of the settlement. We reverse and remand the award of attorney's fees to class counsel for consideration of the effect, if any, of the incentive agreements on entitlement to fees. And with that, the attorneys' fees issued was sent back down I-5 to the chambers of Judge Real. That, lo and behold, brings the Journal's Law Blog to the Feb. 17, 2009, order from Judge Real in Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., et al., Case No. 05-cv-03222 (C.D. Calif.), a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/8xR7c Judge Real took the Ninth Circuit's opinion seriously. Very seriously. He wrote: [T]he agreements gave rise to a conflict of interest that tainted the McGuireWoods representation. That a fair settlement was ultimately reached does not bear upon the seriousness of the ethical violation. This is all according to, at least, the Ninth Circuit. Under California law in the absence of informed written consent, the simultaneous representation of clients with conflicting interest constitutes an automatic ethics violation that results in the forfeiture of attorneys' fees. [Citation omitted.] Moreover, quantum meruit recovery is barred where an attorney has violated an ethical rule that proscribed the very conduct for which compensation was sought. [Citation omitted.] Accordingly, McGuireWoods LLP is not entitled to any fees for its representation in this matter. McGuireWoods has moved to have Judge Real reconsider this decision. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: DPL, Unit Subject to Pending Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- DPL Inc. and its subsidiary, The Dayton Power and Light Company, have been named as defendants in pending asbestos litigation, which at this time is not material to the Company, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Asbestos and other regulated substances are, and may continue to be, present at the Company's facilities where suitable alternative materials are not available. The continued presence of asbestos and other regulated substances at these facilities could result in additional litigation being brought against the Company. The Company added a new asset retirement obligation for a landfill and additional layers to its existing landfill and asbestos AROs in the amount of US$2.7 million during 2009. COMPANY PROFILE: DPL Inc. 1065 Woodman Drive Dayton, Ohio 45432 Tel. No.: 937-224-6000 Description: DPL Inc.'s main subsidiary, Dayton Power and Light (DP&L), provides electricity to more than 515,000 electricity customers in 24 counties in west central Ohio. Non-regulated subsidiary DPL Energy markets wholesale power generated at the Company's 10 power plants, which produce about 3,700 MW of primarily coal- fired generating capacity. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,611 Claims Pending v. Burlington at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation faced 1,611 unresolved asbestos claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 1,833 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 11, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company faced 1,743 unresolved asbestos cases during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 1,860 cases during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009) During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 290 claims filed and 512 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 494 claims filed and 442 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. The Company is party to personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at the Company by 1985. In 2009, the Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and unasserted asbestos claims were US$236 million. Payments made during the year were US$15 million. In 2008, the Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and unasserted asbestos claims were US$251 million. Payments made during the year were US$19 million. Of the obligation at Dec. 31, 2009, US$198 million was related to unasserted claims while US$38 million was related to asserted claims. About US$16 million at Dec. 31, 2009 and US$17 million at Dec. 31, 2008 were included in current liabilities. It is reasonably possible that future costs to settle asbestos claims may range from about US$212 million to US$257 million. However, the Company said it believes that the US$236 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2009, is the best estimate of the Company's future obligation for the settlement of asbestos claims. Headquartered in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation is a holding company that conducts no operating activities and owns no significant assets other than through its interests in its subsidiaries. Through its subsidiaries, the Company is engaged primarily in the freight rail transportation business. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company and its subsidiaries had about 35,000 employees. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 23T Injury Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner Inc. had about 23,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 27,000 claims as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 11, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Of the 23,000 outstanding claims at Dec. 31, 2009, about 12,000 were pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort and judicial reform activities are underway. The Company faced about 23,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009) Like many other industrial companies who have historically operated in the United States, the Company (or parties the Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. In 2009, of about 5,300 claims resolved, about 223 (4.2 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In 2008, of about 17,500 claims resolved, about 210 (1.2 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated with all claims were covered by the Company's primary layer insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended, settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement. In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This led the Company to access the next available layer of insurance coverage. Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos- related litigation defense and settlement expenses pursuant to a funding arrangement. To date, the Company has paid US$79.8 million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received US$21.2 million in cash from insurers. The net outstanding balance of US$58.6 million is expected to be fully recovered, of which US$23 million is expected to be recovered in 2010. Timing of the recovery is dependent on final resolution of a declaratory judgment action. At Dec. 31, 2008, insurers owed US$35.9 million in association with these claims. In addition, at Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has estimated a liability of US$49.9 million for claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related defense costs. The Company also has a related asset of US$49.9 million to recognize the proceeds receivable from the insurance carriers. Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and decisions received to date in the declaratory judgment action. At Dec. 31, 2008, the comparable value of the insurance receivable and accrued liability was US$34.7 million. Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly engineered automotive systems and components, primarily for powertrain applications. These products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light-vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and light-trucks). ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Still Faces Continental Case in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., by Continental Casualty Company and related companies (CNA) continues to be pending against BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general liability insurers. In the suit filed in January 2004, CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-related product liability claims. The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage available to the Company including whether the available limits exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be apportioned. On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding the apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of making insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs pro rata to time-on-the- risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage. Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is reserved for appellate review at the end of the action. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos- related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of insurance available for potential future asbestos-related product claims. Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly engineered automotive systems and components, primarily for powertrain applications. These products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light-vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and light-trucks). ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Technologies Still Facing Injury Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Technologies Corporation continues to be a defendant in lawsuits personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of its products or premises, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 11, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. While it has never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporates it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of the Company's historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have contained components incorporating asbestos. Most of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of the closed cases has been resolved for amounts that are not material individually or in the aggregate. Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., United Technologies Corporation provides high technology products and services to the building systems and aerospace industries worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Injury Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to be a defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products. The complaints in these cases are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 11, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of the claims seek damages from the Company alone. Headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company and its subsidiaries manufacture, market, and sell lawn and garden care products. The Company's primary customers include home centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers, food and drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses and specialty crop growers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Long-Term Liability at $406.9M in Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability amounted to US$406.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$380.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Feb. 11, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$336.3 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009) The Company's current asbestos liability amounted to US$85.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$85.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$171.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$239.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$67.2 million, compared with US$67.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. During the fourth quarter, the Company completed its normal annual review of its 10-year estimate of the asbestos liability of its subsidiaries. As a result of the review, the Company has adjusted its previous estimate of the liability to reflect changes in its assumptions regarding new mesothelioma claims filings, payments by trusts established to pay claims against former asbestos defendants who have emerged from bankruptcy, and other factors. As a result of the adjustment, the Company recorded a non-cash charge of US$80.7 million to adjust the estimate as well as a non-cash charge of US$6.2 million for the normal quarterly update of the estimate. The Company also incurred cash expenses for legal and administrative costs of US$7 million in the quarter, resulting in total asbestos-related expenses of US$93.9 million in the fourth quarter and US$135.5 million for the full year. Net cash outflows for asbestos-related payments and expenses were US$39.8 million in 2009 compared to US$37 million in 2008. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc. produces sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other engineered products for use in critical applications by industries worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Corp. Units Face 526 Cases at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Certain U.S. subsidiaries of Celanese Corporation, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2009, are defendants in about 526 asbestos cases, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of Sept. 30, 2009, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, LLC faced 517 asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009) During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, 56 new cases were filed against the Company, 90 cases were resolved, and one case was added after further analysis by outside counsel. Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims arising from these matters. Headquartered in Dallas, Celanese Corporation produces chemicals and advanced materials. The Company produces acetyl products, which are intermediate chemicals for nearly all major industries. The Company also produces high performance engineered polymers that are used in high-value, end-use applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $155MM Litigation Charges in 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc recorded asbestos-related litigation charges, net of insurance, of US$155 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$125 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges, net of insurance, were US$38 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$43 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009) The Company's insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$941 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.029 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company is a defendant personal injury actions related to asbestos. It did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation products or other construction materials that have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vast majority of claimants. Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the Company or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into two general categories: refractory products and friction products. Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer that serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $831M NARCO Receivable at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell Insurance receivable for its former North American Refractories Company (NARCO) subsidiary amounted to US$831 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$877 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's insurance receivable for NARCO was US$870 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009) The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO- related asbestos claims of US$1.1 billion as of both Dec. 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that were sold to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less than two percent of NARCO'S products contained asbestos. When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against the Company. The stay has remained in effect continuously since Jan. 4, 2002. In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO with up to US$20 million in financing. The Company also agreed to pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent company upon the filing of a plan of reorganization for NARCO acceptable to the Company (which amount was paid in December 2005 following the filing of NARCO's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parent company $40 million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCO indebtedness to the Company, upon the effective date of the plan of reorganization. In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the 524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the Company. In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008. In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is fully briefed, oral argument took place on May 21, 2009, and the matter has been submitted for decision. Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer that serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $300Mil NARCO Coverage at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. says that about US$300 million of coverage under certain asbestos insurance policies is included in its North American Refractories Company (NARCO)-related insurance receivable at Dec. 31, 2009. About US$340 million of coverage under certain asbestos insurance policies was included in the Company's insurance receivable at Sept. 30, 2009, related to NARCO. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009) In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company filed a lawsuit against the Company and other insurance carriers in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, disputing obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance carriers. In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed on a critical choice of law issue concerning the appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related asbestos liabilities to triggered policies. The plaintiffs appealed and the trial court's ruling was upheld by the intermediate appellate court in the second quarter of 2009. Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Appellate Division, the highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009. A related New Jersey action brought by the Company has been dismissed, but all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been preserved in the New York action. Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer that serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Bendix Decrease to 19,940 at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials business faced 19,940 asbestos claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 51,951 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Asbestos-related claims against Bendix dropped to 48,622 during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009) Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Existing and potential claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. From 1981 through Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has resolved about 152,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. The Company had 129 trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 17 trials resulting in adverse verdicts. Four of these adverse verdicts were reversed on appeal, five verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three claims were settled and the remaining five have been or will be appealed. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 2,697 claims filed and 34,708 claims resolved. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 4,003 claims filed and 51,951 claims resolved. Of the outstanding claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 4,727 as mesothelioma and other cancer claims and 15,213 as other claims. Of the outstanding claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 5,575 as mesothelioma and other cancer claims and 46,376 as other claims. Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer that serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Liabilities at $1.69B at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related liabilities for Honeywell International Inc.'s subsidiaries amounted to US$1.694 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.709 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Of the US$1.694 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, about US$566 million related to the Bendix friction materials business and US$1.128 related to the former subsidiary, North American Refractories Company (NARCO). Of the US$1.709 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, about US$578 related to Bendix and about US$1.131 billion related to NARCO. Asbestos liabilities for the Company's subsidiaries were US$1.730 billion during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, of which US$1.130 billion was for NARCO and US$600 million was for Bendix. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009) Insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities were US$1.003 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, of which US$172 million related to Bendix and US$831 million related to NARCO. Insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities were US$1.003 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, of which US$156 million related to Bendix and US$877 million related to NARCO. Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a manufacturer that serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Has Capital Expenditures for Cleanup --------------------------------------------------------------- Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., in 2009, had capital expenditures of about US$2.1 million under an environmental cleanup plan, which includes asbestos-related matters, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company estimates that its capital expenditures will be about US$5.1 million in total for 2010 and 2011 under this plan. The Company had capital expenditures of about US$3.5 million in 2008 under a cleanup plan involving asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009) Substantially all of the Company's facilities are subject to laws and regulations dealing with above-ground and underground fuel storage tanks and the discharge of materials into the environment. It has adopted a plan for the testing, repair, and removal, if necessary, of underground fuel storage tanks at its locations in North America. This plan includes any necessary remediation of tank sites and the abatement of any pollutants discharged. The Company's plan extends to the upgrade of wastewater handling facilities and any necessary remediation of asbestos-containing materials found in its facilities. Headquartered in Atlanta, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. is a Coke bottler that accounts for 18 percent of worldwide sales of Coca- Cola's beverages. The Company also bottles and distributes other beverages, including Canada Dry and Dr Pepper (both brands owned by Dr Pepper Snapple Group), Nestea (Nestle), bottled waters, and juices. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Congoleum's Plan Slated for March 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corporation says that a hearing on its disclosure statement and plan voting procedures has been scheduled for March 12, 2010, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 12, 2010. On Feb. 12, 2010, the Company reported that it has filed a modified plan of reorganization and disclosure statement with the U.S. District Court. The plan was filed jointly with the official asbestos claimants' committee, the official committee of bondholders and the futures representative. Terms of the plan are substantially similar to those of the previous reorganization plan filed on Oct. 22, 2009. The Company has reached a US$100 million settlement with nine insurance groups and the New Jersey insurance guaranty associations, and a hearing to approve that settlement is scheduled for Feb. 19, 2010. A settlement with another insurer for US$2.1 million has been reached and will also be heard on that date. The Company will additionally be seeking approval of the US$25 million settlement it reached in 2006 with Travelers. A further 12 insurance settlements totaling US$82 million are in force and have already received court approval. Net proceeds from these settlements are payable to the plan trust that will be formed for asbestos claimants after a plan becomes effective. In the event the Court approves the settlements being heard Feb. 19, 2010, one insurer, Chartis (formerly known as AIG), remains unsettled because a prior settlement agreement has been declared expired. Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "We are pleased that the futures representative has added his official support to the plan and that a hearing date has been set for our disclosure statement. It also marks tremendous progress to have only one unsettled insurer. Negotiations to modify their agreement are underway." Mr. Marcus continued, "The District Court entered an order this week scheduling our confirmation hearing for May 25, 2010 and we are fully committed to emerging from bankruptcy in the second quarter of this year." Headquartered in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corporation manufactures resilient flooring, serving both residential and commercial markets. Its sheet, tile and plank products are available in various designs and colors, and are used in remodeling, manufactured housing, new construction and commercial applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Has $17.5M Adjustment in 3Q-Fiscal 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------- James Hardie Industries N.V. recorded net unfavorable asbestos adjustments of US$17.5 million during the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 and US$200 million during the nine months of fiscal year 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company recorded 401 new claims during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 607 claims during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company recorded 430 closed claims during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 596 claims during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008. Open claims against the Company numbered to 505 during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 534 claims during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008. Average settlement amount per settled claim was US$155,556 during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$151,300 during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008. Average settlement amount per case closed was US$144,342 during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$133,530 during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 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. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Has $102.1M Current Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Hardie Industries N.V.'s current asbestos-related liability amounted to US$102.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$78.2 million as of March 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to US$1.496 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.206 billion as of March 31, 2009. The Company recorded current asbestos-related workers' compensation of US$700,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$600,000 as of March 31, 2009. The Company recorded long-term asbestos-related workers' compensation of US$96.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$73.8 million as of March 31, 2009. Under current assets, the Company's asbestos-related restricted cash and cash equivalents amounted to US$43.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$45.4 million as of March 31, 2009. The Company's asbestos-related restricted short-term investments amounted to US$26.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$52.9 million as of March 31, 2009. Under current assets, the Company's asbestos-related insurance receivable amounted to US$16.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$12.6 million as of March 31, 2009. The Company recorded asbestos-related workers' compensation of US$700,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$600,000 as of March 31, 2009. The Company's asbestos-related deferred income taxes were US$16.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$12.3 million as of March 31, 2009. Under long-term assets, the Company's asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$182.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$149 million as of March 31, 2009. The Company recorded asbestos-related workers' compensation of US$96.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$73.8 million as of March 31, 2009. The Company's asbestos-related deferred income taxes amounted to US$414.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$333.2 million as of March 31, 2009. Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 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. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand plc Records $25M Income in 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand plc says that, during the fourth quarter of 2009, it had a US$25 million income primarily related to a favorable settlement with an insurance carrier associated with a portion of its asbestos obligation, offset by a US$24.4 million currency loss triggered by the devaluation of the Venezuela Bolivar. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Swords, Ireland, Ingersoll-Rand plc makes products like Club Car golf carts, Hussmann refrigeration equipment, Schlage security locks, Thermo King temperature control equipment, and Trane air conditioning systems and services. Pumps, tools, air compressors, and material handling equipment are also made under the Ingersoll-Rand brand. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Dismissal Motion in Garner Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, granted defendants' motion to dismiss an asbestos-related case styled Gail Garner, The Estate of Angelo Palermo, Plaintiff v. DII Industries, LLC, Mark M. Gleason & Marcellene Malouf, Defendants. District Judge Charles J. Siragusa entered judgment in Case No. 08-CV-6191-CJS on Feb. 4, 2010. Gail Garner filed her original complaint pro se and alleged that Defendants were liable to her father's estate for his death caused by exposure to asbestos. On Nov. 14, 2008, the Court, interpreting Mrs. Garner's response to Defendants' first motion to dismiss as a request to proceed pro se as the representative of her father's estate, denied the request. She subsequently hired counsel, and on March 27, 2009, filed an amended complaint. On April 17, 2009, Defendants again moved to dismiss, primarily on the ground that Mrs. Garner's claim against them was barred by the statute of limitations. Angelo Palermo was a union insulation mason for 29 years from 1937 through 1966 in the construction asbestos industry. He spray-coated and handled asbestos-containing products while working for one or more of the Haliburton or Harbison-Walker entities. He died on April 23, 1966, at the age of 51 years. On June 6, 2003, Mr. Palermo was posthumously diagnosed with mesothelioma "by a tribunal of asbestos experts who were part of the Extraordinary Claims Panel of the Mansville Trust." On April 4, 2006, Mrs. Garner filed a claim with DII Industries, LLC, and, the following day, filed a claim with the DII Trust, with regard to her father's death. Defendants eventually rejected the claims, and a pro bono evaluator confirmed Defendants' denial. In her amended complaint, Mrs. Garner asserted three causes of action. First, a claim that Defendants negligently caused Mr. Palermo's death; second, a claim that defendants Mark M. Gleason and Marcellene Malouf breached a fiduciary duty owed to Mrs. Garner; and third, a claim that DII Industries, LLC Asbestos PI Trust was negligent in hiring and supervising Mr. Gleason and Mr. Malouf. Mr. Gleason was described as a Trustee of the Trust, and Mr. Malouf was described as the Trust's Executive Director. Christina A. Agola, Esq., in Rochester, N.Y., represented Gail Garner. Andrew L. Morrison, Esq., of K & L Gates LLP in New York, Beth W. Bivans, Esq. of K & L Gates LLP in Dallas, represented the Defendants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich, Units Still Subject to Injury Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries are still defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at the Company's facilities, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by the court. In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its Engineered Industrial Products (EIP) segment, which at the time of the spin-off included EnPro Industries, Inc. and Coltec Industries Inc. At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were defendants in a significant number of personal injury claims relating to alleged asbestos-containing products sold by those subsidiaries prior to the Company's ownership. It is possible that asbestos-related claims might be asserted against the Company on the theory that it has some responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities of EnPro, Coltec or its subsidiaries. A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one of its subsidiaries. The Company said it believes that it has substantial legal defenses against these and other such claims. In addition, the agreement between EnPro and the Company that was used to effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corporation supplies aerospace components, systems and services to the commercial and general aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies systems and products to the global defense and space markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Still Subject to Respirator Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, as of Dec. 31, 2009, is a named defendant in respirator mask cases (including asbestos-related) in various courts that purport to represent about 2,510 individual claimants, down from about 2,700 individual claimants with actions pending at Dec. 31, 2008. As of Sept. 30, 2009, the Company faced respirator mask cases (including asbestos-related) in various courts with 2,490 individual claimants, down from the number of individual claims pending at June 30, 2009 and March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009) Most of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. Plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in about 32 percent of the 913 lawsuits that were pending against the Company at the end of 2009 in all jurisdictions. Most states restrict or prohibit specifying damages in tort cases such as these, and most of the remaining jurisdictions do not require such specification. In those cases in which plaintiffs choose to assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, brought in states that permit such pleading, the amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of the Company's potential liability. Some complaints allege that the compensatory and punitive damages are at least the amounts specified. The Company's experience and the other reasons cited indicate that the damage amounts specified in complaints are not a meaningful factor in any assessment of the Company's potential liability. Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified technology company with a global presence in the following businesses: Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and Graphics; and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company employed 74,835 people. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in 9th Case v. 3M Company Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An unnamed plaintiff's appeal, over the dismissal of a ninth asbestos-related respirator case against 3M Company, is still pending. The Company tried its ninth respirator case in the Superior Court of Alameda County, Calif. The plaintiff, who is suffering from mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos, claimed that the Company's respirators were defective and failed to provide him with adequate protection and came with inadequate warnings. On July 6, 2009, after nearly four months of trial, the judge granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims against the Company at the end of the plaintiff's case. The trial judge dismissed the claims against the Company because the plaintiff failed to prove that a defect in the Company's respirator or its warnings was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's mesothelioma. The plaintiff has filed an appeal of the trial judge's decision. With this dismissal, the Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the one jury verdict adverse to the Company, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified technology company with a global presence in the following businesses: Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and Graphics; and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company employed 74,835 people. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Still Has $34MM Aearo Liabilities at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, as of Dec. 31, 2009, has recorded US$34 million as an estimate of the probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica- related claims. On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo. Aearo manufactures and sells various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. As of Dec. 31, 2009, Aearo and other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (Payor Group). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot an annual fee of US$400,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, asbestos and silica-related product liability claims for respirators manufactured prior to July 11, 1995. Because the date of manufacture for a particular respirator allegedly used in the past is often difficult to determine, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica or products containing asbestos or silica prior to Jan. 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or other occupational dusts on or after Jan. 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters. Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified technology company with a global presence in the following businesses: Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and Graphics; and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company employed 74,835 people. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Records $138M Liabilities at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company recorded asbestos or respirator mask liabilities of US$138 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$140 million at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's liabilities for asbestos and respirator mask claims were US$126 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009) The Company recorded asbestos or respirator mask insurance receivables of US$143 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$193 million at Dec. 31, 2008. As a result of the costs of aggressively defending itself and the greater cost of resolving claims of persons with malignant conditions, the Company increased its reserves in 2009 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by US$33 million. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had reserves for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of US$104 million (excluding Aearo reserves). As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was US$143 million. The Company increased its receivables for insurance recoveries by US$7 million in 2009 related to this litigation. As a result of settlements reached with its insurers, the Company was paid about US$57 million in 2009 and has an agreement in principle to receive an additional US$28 million in connection with the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified technology company with a global presence in the following businesses: Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and Graphics; and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company employed 74,835 people. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Insurance Case v. 3M Set for June 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A trial in an insurance-related asbestos case against 3M Company is scheduled to begin in June 2012, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. - both part of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims. These insurers represent about US$14 million of the US$143 million insurance recovery receivable. The action seeks declaratory judgment regarding the allocation of covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers. It was filed in Hennepin County, Minn., and named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company's insurers. This action is similar in nature to an action filed in 1994 with respect to breast implant coverage, which ultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of 2003 that was largely in the Company's favor. At the Company's request, the case was transferred to Ramsey County, over the objections of the insurers. The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral argument of the insurers' appeal of that decision in March 2008 and ruled in May 2008 that the proper venue of that case is Ramsey County. The case has been assigned to a judge in Ramsey County District Court. The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that names some additional insurers and deletes others. Several of the insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been dismissed because of settlements they have reached with the Company regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit. The case remains in its early stages. Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified technology company with a global presence in the following businesses: Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and Graphics; and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company employed 74,835 people. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Okla. Court Affirms Dismissal of Winrow Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving asbestos filed by Billy J. Winrow. The case is styled Billy J. Winrow, Plaintiff v. Justin Jones, Director; et al., Defendants. District Judge James H. Payne entered judgment in Case No. 08-CV- 761-JHP-TLW on Feb. 5, 2010. On Dec. 23, 2008, Mr. Winrow, a state inmate appearing pro se, filed a civil rights complaint naming three defendants: Justin Jones, Director; Walter Dinwiddie, Warden; and James Lowman, Employee. On June 1, 2009, Mr. Winrow filed an amended complaint naming five defendants: Mr. Jones, Director; Mr. Dinwiddie, Warden; Mr. Lowman, Employee; Jack Lemmons, Employee, and Sgt. Reeves, Employee. With the exception of Mr. Jones, the defendants work at Dick Conner Correctional Center (DCCC). On Aug. 27, 2009, Mr. Jones, Mr. Dinwiddie, Mr. Lowman, and Mr. Lemons filed a motion for summary judgment, along with a Special Report. Mr. Winrow responded. Mr. Winrow's claims occurred at DCCC, located in Hominy, Okla. He is no longer incarcerated at that facility. In his amended complaint, he identified two claims. Mr. Winrow alleged that on Aug. 31, 2006, he was placed in the Segregated Housing Unit (SHU) at DCCC. While in his cell in SHU, he noticed that "there was a flow of dust particles coming from the air conditioning ventilation system." Upon closer examination, he determined that "a piece of asbestos [was] sticking inside of the ventilation duct work and the asbestos had become friable." Mr. Winrow further stated that he "lived under these unconstitutional conditions for approximately 30 days breathing and eating the friable asbestos dust particles coming from the ventilation system." He claimed he has "migraine headaches, bleeding nose issues, and a swollen esophagus that causes this plaintiff pain while eating and drinking." By Opinion and Order filed Sept. 3, 2008, the Hon. Terence Kern determined that Mr. Winrow had failed to exhaust administrative remedies and, for that reason, dismissed the complaint. In response to the amended complaint, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Mr. Winrow filed a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, it was ordered that Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted and Mr. Winrow's complaint, as amended, was dismissed with prejudice. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Workers Protesting on Elmira Site Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- A group of union workers are protesting the lack of local workers hired to conduct an asbestos abatement and demolition project at an armory in Elmira, N.Y., Mesothelioma.com reports. At least two dozen union construction workers gathered in front of Elmira City Hall early in February 2010 to protest the project. According to Alex Parillo, the field representative and apprentice coordinator for Laborers Local 785, told reporters that his union attempted to work with the project's contractor, Epic Contracting Inc. of Orchard Park. However, the contractor failed to hire what the union considered to be an acceptable number of local workers. Mr. Parillo told reporters that he would like to have new language added to contracts and bid packets that requires a certain percentage of workers to be locally-based. Skilled workers are needed to undertake asbestos removal, as exposure to airborne asbestos particles can lead to the development of lethal cancers like mesothelioma. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Saranac Lake, N.Y. Lot to Cost $12T --------------------------------------------------------------- The Board of Trustees in Saranac Lake, N.Y., recently voted to pay US$12,000 to remove asbestos from an abandoned and dilapidated trailer on the Neil Street property, which village officials seized in 2009, the Adirondack Daily Enterprise reports. Once it was cleaned up, village officials had planned to sell the property. However, the .11-acre parcel, which measures 100 feet by 51 feet, is so small that it cannot be developed with anything larger than a structure would be 80 feet long and 10 feet wide, without getting variances from the village's setback requirements. However, the trailer could be replaced without getting a variance. Mayor Tom Michael suggested the village contact BOCES, Habitat for Humanity or another nonprofit organization to see if they would be willing to propose building something on the site, along with securing the necessary permits and variances. In return, Mr. Michael said, the village could sell the property at cost. Trustee Susan Waters, who voted against paying for the asbestos removal and demolition along with Trustee Christy Fontana, said those costs should be paid by the purchaser of the property. However, Trustee Jeff Branch said the village is obligated to get rid of the asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Soyars Indicted for Cleanup Violations in Colo. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal grand jury, on Feb. 10, 2010, indicted James Robert Soyars Jr., on charges that his company removed asbestos from various sites in Colorado and improperly stored it in a rental storage unit instead of immediately disposing of it, The Gazette reports. If found guilty, Mr. Soyars faces up to five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine. The nine-count indictment filed in the U.S. District Court charges Mr. Soyars, owner of Talon Environmental Inc., with violating the Clean Air Act by mishandling asbestos removed from three sites, including one in downtown Colorado Springs. Between April 22, 2006, and Aug. 28, 2006, Talon removed asbestos from the Transamerica Title Company building at 121 E. Vermijo Ave., the indictment states. However, instead of immediately disposing of the asbestos, Mr. Soyars allegedly moved it to a storage facility in Denver. Mr. Soyars is accused of doing the same thing with asbestos removed from a former bowling alley in Greeley and a Gateway Mazda dealership in Aurora. Specifically, the indictment charges Mr. Soyars with three counts each of failing to deposit the asbestos as soon as possible, failing to label containers and failing to mark the vehicles used to transport the material. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Probing Topeka Prison for Inmates' Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is probing if inmates and employees at the Topeka women's prison in Topeka, Kans., were exposed to asbestos during building renovations, fox4kc.com reports. Bill Miskell, Kansas Department of Corrections spokesman, says the EPA's attention is focused on renovation of one building in 2005. However, the Topeka Capital-Journal reported that former employees involved in asbestos abatement at the prison stated improper exposure occurred during rehabilitation of several structures. EPA spokesman Chris Whitley says the agency is still in the process of gathering information and talking to people. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Firm Ordered to Clear Hazard from Empty Lot ---------------------------------------------------------------- An unnamed garbage firm based in Louisville, Ky., was ordered to remove asbestos that has been sitting in the City's lots for months, WHAS11.com reports. The company, which went out of business after its owner was incarcerated in July 2009, has been keeping the asbestos for more than six months, prompting numerous complaints from the local population about the wildlife attracted by the garbage and the health risks posed by the presence of asbestos. The garbage is mostly building insulation from a Chevron Corporation warehouse that was destroyed by one of the company's partners. The trash is double bagged and sealed, and federal regulations require the prompt removal of the toxic material to reduce the risk of health problems. Matt Stull, a spokesperson for the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board, said, "Any materials containing asbestos is a concern because of its link to lung cancer. So we take all of these complaints very seriously." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warning Issued Over Imported Tiles in Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Competitor and Consumer Commission (ACCC), on Feb. 13, 2010, said that wall tiles, which were imported from China, contain tremolite asbestos, a prohibited hazardous substance, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. The tiles, which had been sold in Australia, have been withdrawn. However, there were fears that some tiles were still available on the market or may already have been installed, the ACCC said. The tiles are sold under the brand name Snow White and are described as bright white in color with a quartz-like appearance. They are made up of a number of pieces glued together to give the appearance of stacked stone. The ACCC said in a statement, "The ACCC is working closely with the Customs and Border Protection Service and WorkCover authorities to identify any other sources of the product in the market and to have them withdrawn." NSW WorkCover is advising consumers who may already have the product installed to isolate the area until the tiles have been removed by a licensed asbestos removalist and the area cleared by an occupational hygienist. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Records Lower Hazard Levels in Libby, Mont. ---------------------------------------------------------------- During a public meeting on Feb. 8, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that asbestos levels in and around Libby, Mont., schools are much lower than in years past and do not pose a risk to children, The Western News reports. EPA Toxicologist David Berry said, "The first, probably most important question is, is it OK to send my children to school here in Libby, and I think the answer is yes. Levels that were detected in the activity-based sampling were within acceptable exposure levels as evidence and used at other Superfund sites in the United States." The scientific methods of measuring the amount of asbestos fibers in the air and soil and the means by which a toxicity value was assigned to Libby amphibole, the area's unique form of asbestos fiber, left some attendees of the meeting uncertain. Since EPA's toxicity studies concerning Libby amphibole have not been completed, the EPA uses the toxicity value of a different asbestos fiber when determining risk. Some believe that Libby amphibole is the most potent type of asbestos. The EPA took air and soil samples last year at five Libby school campuses including the administration building, high school, middle school, Asa Wood and the former Plummer building that now houses Head Start. Two-day composite samples recorded the indoor air quality in various areas of all of the buildings. Out of 51 samples, 49 did not detect the presence of asbestos. A detection occurred in a Libby Middle School hallway and another in an Asa Wood classroom. Mr. Berry pointed out that the fibers were most-likely brought into the schools on shoes or clothing. EPA detected asbestos in five out of 63 outdoor activity-based samples, which were taken while simulating student and maintenance worker activities such as swinging, playing sports, mowing lawns and sweeping. The five samples were just barely detectable using EPA's current method, Mr. Berry said. Out of the 41 soil samples taken outside the schools, 31 revealed a trace amount of asbestos, which is defined as detectable but less than 0.2 percent. All buildings except the middle school had at least one example of visible vermiculite. Soil samples in 2001, Mr. Berry said, revealed asbestos levels as high as 15 percent at the middle school, due mostly to the track made of mine tailings, and 8 percent at the high school. Soil sampling in 2001 also showed no asbestos outside the administration building, though the 2009 testing revealed trace amounts. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Uncovered at Sackets Sewage Plant Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos-coated cement pipe was discovered during blasting at the site of the new sewage treatment facility in Sackets Harbor, N.Y., the Watertown Daily Times reports. The discovery of the pipe will require more funds and labor for its removal. The budgeted cost of the facility is US$9,004,643. Cory Reid of Bernier, Carr & Associates in Watertown, N.Y., said the outfall, the pipe that leads from the plant to Lake Ontario, tested positive for asbestos. He said, "We are working on a work plan to submit to the state Department of Labor to get approval. Once we get that approval, we can get a cost from the contractor. "Worst case scenario, I'm thinking US$50,000. That's not what any of the contractors have told us; it's just what we have seen on past projects. We're hoping it will be far less than that." The asbestos-coated pipe must be handled specially and then taken to the regional landfill in Rodman, which is certified to take asbestos-contaminated waste. There is no threat to residents and there is a lot more leniency with how the pipe must be handled because it is outside, not in a building, said Lonnie L. Reinhardt, Department of Works superintendent. Aside from the discovery of asbestos, the project has been running smoothly. Mayor F. Eric Constance said, "We're moving along well on the project." ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal to Spend $4M for Cleanup in 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------- ArcerlorMittal says that subsidiary ArcelorMittal USA's environmental provisions include US$55 million, with anticipated expenditures of US$4 million during 2010, to specifically address the removal and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and the elimination of asbestos-containing material. Headquartered in Luxembourg, ArcelorMittal makes steel, producing more than 100 million tons annually. Operating globally -- though strongest in Europe - the Company makes the full range of steel products: slabs and coil, coated steel and tinplate, wire rod and rebar, and billets and blooms, as well as all manner of stainless and electrical steel products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal Cites 402 French Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The number of claims outstanding for asbestos exposure against certain French subsidiaries of ArcelorMittal was 402 at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 431 at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 63 claims filed and 81 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 76 claims filed and 105 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Various retired or present employees of certain French subsidiaries of the former Arcelor have initiated lawsuits to obtain compensation for asbestos exposure in excess of the amounts paid by French social security. Asbestos claims in France initially are made by way of a declaration of a work-related illness by the claimant to the Social Security authorities resulting in an investigation and a level of compensation paid by Social Security. Once the Social Security authorities recognize the work-related illness, the claimant, depending on the circumstances, can also file an action for inexcusable negligence (faute inexcusable) to obtain additional compensation from the company before a special tribunal. Where procedural errors are made by Social Security, it is required to assume full payment of damages awarded to the claimants. Due to fewer procedural errors and, consequently, fewer rejected cases, the Company was required to pay some amounts in damages in 2009. The range of amounts claimed for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009 was EUR7,500 to EUR865,000 (about US$10,000 to US$1,150,000). The aggregate costs and settlements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009 were US$3.5 million, of which US$400,000 represents legal fees and US$3 million represents damages paid to the claimant. The aggregate costs and settlements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008 were about US$510,000 and zero, respectively. Headquartered in Luxembourg, ArcelorMittal makes steel, producing more than 100 million tons annually. Operating globally -- though strongest in Europe - the Company makes the full range of steel products: slabs and coil, coated steel and tinplate, wire rod and rebar, and billets and blooms, as well as all manner of stainless and electrical steel products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Still Subject to Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to be subject to occupational claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory diseases, as well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive motion) that are often not caused by a specific accident or event but rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time. Many of these claims are being asserted by former or retired employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail industry for decades, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 17, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Norfolk, Va., Norfolk Southern Corporation's Norfolk Southern Railway Company unit is engaged in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products, and finished goods primarily in the Southeast, East, and Midwest and, via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the United States. The Company also transports overseas freight through several Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in AMSF Action Heard in Dec. 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company says that, on December 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case involving the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF). In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an investigation in connection with the Company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, about 20 similar class actions were filed against the Company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of the Company's present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the Company in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. The Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004. In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by the Company, including that the Company failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against the Company's CEO and the Company. In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification, and the Company's response was filed in November 2007. The court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008 denying AMSF's motion for class certification. AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to appeal the district court's order denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion. Both parties filed briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in December 2009. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. AMSF will have the opportunity to request additional review by the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had not accrued any amounts related to this matter. Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Company provides services and products to customers in the energy industry related to the exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas. The Company serves major, national, and independent oil and natural gas companies throughout the world and operates under two divisions: the Completion and Production segment and the Drilling and Evaluation segment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Co. Records $90M Settlement in 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company received payments of US$90 million for its asbestos-related insurance settlements during 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 17, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. At Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter 11 proceedings of DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, and its other affected subsidiaries that had previously been named as defendants in a large number of asbestos- and silica-related lawsuits. During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance policies. Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general liability insurance policies in certain situations. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had not recorded any liability associated with these indemnifications. Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Company provides services and products to customers in the energy industry related to the exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas. The Company serves major, national, and independent oil and natural gas companies throughout the world and operates under two divisions: the Completion and Production segment and the Drilling and Evaluation segment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hosea Project Pays $22T Fine for Cleanup Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- D. Todd Hosea, d/b/a Hosea Project Movers (Project Movers), of Covington, Ky., has paid a US$22,000 penalty for violating Ohio's asbestos emission control standards at the Crosley Building, 1333 Arlington St., Cincinnati, according to an Ohio Environmental Protection Agency press release dated Feb. 17, 2010. Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services (HCDOES), which serves as Ohio's contractual representative administering air pollution programs in the greater Cincinnati area, discovered and documented the violations. HCDOES referred the case to Ohio EPA for enforcement. During 2007, the Cincinnati Fire Department ordered Project Movers to completely remove the Crosley Building' interior. Ohio law requires commercial and industrial building owners and operators to evaluate whether asbestos is present before demolition or major remodeling. If asbestos is present in sufficient amounts, specific steps must be taken to keep it from becoming airborne. On Sept. 6 2007, HCDOES staff inspected the Crosley Building and found friable asbestos. Violations documented as a result of the inspection include failure to: -- Notify HCDOES before beginning renovation; -- Properly remove asbestos before renovation; -- Keep asbestos wet so that it cannot become airborne; -- Seal all asbestos-containing waste material in durable leak- tight containers; and -- Comply with labeling requirements. Of the US$22,000, about US$4,400 will go to Ohio EPA's Clean Diesel School Bus program. The remaining US$17,600 will be equally divided to administer air pollution control programs and provide environmental education grants through Ohio EPA's Environmental Education Fund. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schuylkill Contractor Cleared of Cleanup Charge ---------------------------------------------------------------- A jury in the Berks County Court acquitted Gary Gerber Jr., 37- year-old a contractor from Schuylkill County, Pa., on charges regarding the disposal of hazardous waste in an illegal dump in Pennsylvania, Mesothelioma.com reports. However, the jury convicted Mr. Gerber, who is the former owner of Mount Carbon Industries, on charges of unlawful conduct for dumping nonhazardous waste. The dumping site is located on the Reading-Muhlenberg Township line, and was allegedly in use between June 2001 and August 2002. Mr. Gerber was accused of dumping lead, silver and asbestos at the five-acre site. Mr. Gerber is currently incarcerated, and is serving out the rest of his sentence for the third-degree murder of a New Jersey man. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie in Dispute With CSR Over Berengo Payout --------------------------------------------------------------- James Hardie Industries N.V. and CSR Limited are in dispute over an AUD2 million settlement reached with Robert Berengo, a 48- year-old man from Victoria, Australia, who contracted mesothelioma as a child, The Australian reports. Now known as Amaca, James Hardie has launched proceedings against CSR to seek a contribution for the compensation after Amaca settled the case involving Mr. Berengo in the Victorian Supreme Court. Mr. Berengo claimed in his lawsuit that he contracted mesothelioma mainly from hugging his father, who was a painter, in the 1960s. Amaca agreed to pay the compensation claim before it reached the courtroom on Feb. 16, 2010, saving Mr Berengo from having to go through a trial. The settlement will be paid by Amaca despite its action against CSR. Mr. Berengo's lawyer, Tracy Madden, said the AUD2 million settlement from Amaca was a great result for her client. She said they claimed he was exposed to asbestos when he used to hug his father in his asbestos-clad work clothes, and when he would help his father on jobs and shake his father's painting sheets at home. Ms. Madden said the case showed the effect asbestos still had on families 30 years after people were originally exposed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynoldsburg City Seeks $435T Grant for Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Reynoldsburg, Ohio, seeks more than US$435,000 in state funds to pay for the asbestos abatement from the former Big Bear slated to become a Valu King grocery store, ThisWeek Community Newspapers reports. A public hearing is set for March 30, 2010, in the city municipal building. Reynoldsburg City Council has approved legislation authorizing development director Lucas Haire to apply for a Clean Ohio Assistance Fund grant to pay for brownfield revitalization work to be done at the site at 6300 E. Livingston Ave., at the corner of Brice Road and Livingston. The city announced that Valu King, a subsidiary of Giant Eagle, is scheduled to open this summer in 32,000 square feet of the 101,000-square-foot building. Mr. Haire said, "The property was found to be contaminated with asbestos, which has hindered the redevelopment of that site. We were approached by the property owners to cooperate with them in applying for this grant." He said government entities are eligible for these types of grants. Mr. Haire said the City will partner with the building owner, Red Raider Capital LLC, to clean up the site. The application is for US$435,342 and will include remediation of the asbestos and some demolition of light fixtures and what was once Big Bear's garden center. He said there is a match component required in the grant application. Mr. Haire said Red Raider Capital LLC is contributing US$411,000 in matching funds. There is a 45-day public comment period after the application is complete. Then it will go to the Ohio Department of Development and on to the State Controlling Board. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repairs at Fresno's Art Museum to Cost $241,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The repairs, including asbestos abatement, of the Fresno Art Museum in Fresno, Calif., will cost US$241,000 and will begin as soon as possible, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports. The City council has approved an emergency proposal to repair the roof of the museum. The ceiling at the museum has asbestos, which is present in ceiling-tile adhesive and wallboard tape, and that will need to be abated. Generally speaking, the City council has to accept multiple bids for a project like this, but because of the urgent need to complete the project quickly, the council approved an emergency resolution to hire Graham Prewett, Inc. to tackle the project. The museum has several leaks that have caused water damage to walls and ceilings, as well as to the roof. A new roof is needed immediately, according to Kenneth Nerland, director of the city's general services department. Mr. Nerland said, "It is urgent that roof-replacement work be completed as soon as possible." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mt. Hood Community College Slated for Abatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos abatement will need to be conducted at the Mt. Hood Community College in Gresham, Ore., before some upgrades at the school have to be undertaken, Mesothelioma.com reports. Ventilation upgrades are ongoing at Mt. Hood Community College. Karen Reynolds, the college's environmental health and safety manager, said that a licensed contractor will be responsible for opening up the ceiling in some area to properly remove any fireproofing debris that has fallen on top of the ceiling tiles. The fireproofing material in question is an asbestos-containing Monocote fireproofing, composed of five percent chrysotile asbestos. Abatement and cleanup efforts have taken place over the past 20 years at the buildings in question, and those who are concerned about the presence of asbestos can refer to a database of asbestos air monitoring information at the school's Environmental Health and Safety Office. ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Defense Dept. Lauded for Funding Increase --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph W. Belluck, Esq., a partner in New York-based law firm Belluck & Fox, LLP, on Feb. 17, 2010, praised the U.S. Department of Defense for stepping up its spending on research into new ways to treat mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure, a once common hazard of military work, according to a Belluck & Fox press release dated Feb. 17, 2010. Mr. Belluck said, "This boost in dollars finally recognizes a condition that has been overlooked and under-researched for far too long. "With more funds and more focus, there's a chance of hope for victims and their families who've too often had none. This has been an orphan disease too long." The Department of Defense effort includes awards totaling several million dollars for three important mesothelioma projects. The funds will support research into early detection of the disease and the development of new treatments, including clinical trials for a promising new vaccine that will directly impact patients. Mr. Belluck said the funding increase must be only the beginning of an effort to find a cure for a disease that has killed many veterans. One third of those who currently die from mesothelioma, about 3,000 annually, were exposed to asbestos on U.S. Navy ships and shipyards, according to the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation. Reported cases of mesothelioma have increased in recent years because of the long latency period associated with the asbestos- caused cancer. It can take anywhere from 10 to 50 years after exposure before the onset of the disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Hazards Found in West Mackay Primary School --------------------------------------------------------------- QBuild, which provides construction and strategic building maintenance services for the Queensland, Australia, Government, says there is no reason for parents at the West Mackay Primary School to be concerned after contractors inappropriately handled asbestos products, ABC News reports. The contractors were issued a notice for breaching the Workplace Health and Safety Act after asbestos walls at the school were sanded and flecks of paint left on the lawn during the school holidays. QBuild's Brett Taylor says testing showed there were no asbestos particles in the air. He said, "All precautionary measures were taken at the time the incident was identified and all works were completed under the guidance of a hygienist who was actually on site." The occupational health and safety consultant who completed air monitoring after the incident says the asbestos was in "bulk" form rather than air particles. Richard Baker from Parsons Bricknerhoff says its tests showed no reason for concern. He said, "The airborne fiber monitoring results were what we consider consistent with background levels, which is less than 0.01 fibres per milliliter of air. That is the standard we look for when we undertake airborne fiber monitoring." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grayling, AT Remove Hazards from Welcome House ---------------------------------------------------------------- Grayling Industries, Inc. and AT Abatement, a division of AT Industries, Inc., donated materials, labor and expertise for a renovation project at Welcome House, a privately funded, non profit, drug and alcohol rehabilitation center located in Kansas City, Mo., according to a Grayling press release dated Feb. 16, 2010. Mr. Greg Roark, Executive Director of Welcome House, said, "The building houses approximately 80 residents when at full capacity and the average stay is from six months to a year. Our ultimate goal is to get these men back out into society, drug and alcohol free and supporting themselves." Welcome House is located in a four story former hospital building built in 1913. The renovation project involves the removal of 1750' of asbestos pipe insulation. Grayling provided the Avail QuickTwist or QT glovebags that would be required for the job and AT Abatement provided the trained asbestos abatement technicians and supervisors necessary to successfully complete the project. As the crew from AT Abatement was not familiar with the QT style glovebag, David Larsen, representing Grayling, presented the QT glovebag concept and provided training on the use of the product. Alan Copeland, the project supervisor, was immediately struck with the substantial opportunity for labor savings by using the QT10 instead of the standard 4460 type of glovebag. He said, "We generally get about 18 inches to 20 inches of horizontal work area with a 4460. It's obvious that we could more than double the amount of work area per glovebag by utilizing the QT10." In the end, the project required 18 cases of glovebags, or 360 QT10 glovebags. Had AT Abatement used the industry standard 4460 glovebags, the project would have required at least 1,000 glovebags, which not only would that have necessitated the purchase of 640 more glovebags, and all of the other supplies required, but it also would have required the time and labor to complete 640 more glovebag operations. Headquartered in Alpharetta, Ga., Grayling Industries, Inc. manufactures specialized flexible film products for industrial applications. Markets served are industrial packaging and environmental safety. Primary products are intermediate bulk containers and liners and products for contamination control on asbestos abatement projects. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wahpeton School Board in N.D. Affirms Abatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Feb. 8, 2010, the Wahpeton School Board in Wahpeton, N.D., approved the contract bid placed by Proctor, Minn.-based Mavo Systems for the "abatement of 9-inch tile and matic" with a 9-0 vote, the Daily News reports. Superintendent Mike Connell said, "We need to get a new floor there. We put new lockers in the building, and we put new doors in, so the last step is a new floor." The project will be funded through US$50,000 in federal stimulus money provided by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The building was originally constructed in 1964 and certain materials like floor tiles contained asbestos. Mr. Connell added, "When you take out any material that contains asbestos you have to have an abatement company remove it. It's not a problem right now because (the tiles are) sealed. In order to put new tiles down we've got to remove the old tile and the old tile contains asbestos." In addition to asbestos and lead abatement, the Mavo Systems also specializes in commercial mechanical installation, concrete floor polish, epoxy floor coatings, HVAC cleaning and decontamination, and industrial mechanical insulation. The company offered US$39,880 to complete the job, with an additional US$6,300 for 12 days (US$525 per day) of necessary air monitoring. The total cost of the project is US$46,180. The process for finding an abatement firm to remove the floor tiles began in early January 2010, when Mr. Connell took four vying contractors on a walkthrough of the high school. Bidding for the contract officially began on Jan. 27, 2010. The tile removal project will begin June 1, 2010 and will take 12 days to complete. ********* 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 2010. 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 * * *