/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100326.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 26, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 60 Headlines AT&T INTERNET: July 1 Deadline to File DSL Speed Claims BAR/BRI: Plaintiffs Lawyers Take Fee Request Back to the 9th Cir. BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: Mass. Oil Spill Trial Gets Underway CLASSMATES.COM: Inks $9.5 Mil. Sales Practice Suit Settlement DIAMOND FOODS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Consumers GAMMON GOLD: Believes Class Definition Limits Potential Liability ROLLS-ROYCE: S.D. Ind. Declines to Certify Female Manager Class TOYOTA MOTOR: Wash. & Ariz. Suits Seek Full Refunds for Autos UNITED STATED: Judge's Rejection of 9/11 Settlement Questioned YELP! INC: Furniture Restorer Files Third Extortion Lawsuit * Securities Class Action Settlements Were $3.8 Billion in 2009 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Records $3.236B Gross Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Records 5,417 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer's Quigley Unit Still Faces Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Facing 100T Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gibsonburg Actions Still Ongoing v. Pfizer Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Facing 50,000 Open Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Crown Court in Texas ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suits Still Ongoing v. Crown Cork in Pa. Courts ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Facing 34,451 Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Capital Cites $252M Unpaid Losses at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Teledyne Tech. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Still Party to Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chem. Unit Still Facing Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Fin'l. Cites $114MM Reserves in 2009 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Facing 105 Actions in Miss., Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Still Party to Aaron Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren, Units Face 75 Pending Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Re Cites $1.74B Reserves for A&E Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Has $10.6Bil A&E, Injury Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Cites $122.7M Gross A&E Reserve at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Records 3,431 Open Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 955 Actions Pending v. TriMas Corp. at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Actions Still Ongoing v. Baldor Electric ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. VWR Funding ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYMAGIC Cites $46.7MM for A&E Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Still Has 861 W.Va. Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Still Subject to Liability Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Fin'l. Cites $2Mil for Claims in '09 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Great Lakes, Units ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Specialty Still Facing Liability Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bridgwater Resident's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Asbestos at Kwinana Station ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Action v. CSX Filed on March 9 in Ill. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Case v. 22 Firms Filed in Jefferson Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Actions Filed on March 10 in St. Clair County ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Allows Chubb to File Action v. Travelers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Filed in St. Clair Co.'s Docket ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Continue Goldenberg Trial Filed March 3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weirton Plant Owner Fined for Cleanup Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jackson to Pay $18.5T to Settle Safety Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sept. 11 Ground Zero Workers Reach $657.5M Deal ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Actions on Jackson Exposure Filed on March 18 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CMS Energy Cites $38Mil Liability for Abatement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Has $229.03M A&E Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. Gorman-Rupp, 2 Units ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stehman Case v. Ballantyne Settled on Dec. 2009 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Alcatel-Lucent ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 11 Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Cites $122MM for Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Has $5.24M 2009 Reorganization Charge ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Met-Pro Corp. Surged to 106 at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing, Anchor Party to Injury Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ind. Faces 97,400 Open Actions at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16 Garlock Sealing Trials Commenced During 2009 ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Has 5 Pending Garlock Appeals at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Cites $79M New Settlement Payments in '09 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Records $238.6M for Coverage at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Completes Sale of Quincy Unit on March 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Firms Fined $64.2T for Boston Cleanup Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Filed v. Woodside in Australia ********* AT&T INTERNET: July 1 Deadline to File DSL Speed Claims ------------------------------------------------------- A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action entitled Robert Schmidt, et al. v. AT&T and SBC Internet Services, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Internet Services, Case No. CV 09 688788, pending in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County Ohio. The lawsuit alleges that AT&T breached its contracts with and defrauded some of its customers by failing to deliver DSL Services to its customers at the speeds promised. AT&T strongly denies the allegations, but has agreed to settle to avoid the burden and cost of further litigation. You are part of the lawsuit if you are a current or former AT&T customer who purchased DSL Service from AT&T in the U.S. after March 31, 1994. The Court has not decided whether or not to approve the Settlement. To participate in the settlement, claims must be submitted by July 1, 2010. Requests for exclusion from the class must be filed by May 3, 2010. Objections to the settlement must also be filing by May 3, 2010. The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing on June 1, 2010. More information about the settlement and claims process is available at http://www.DSLSpeedSettlement.com/which is hosted by Rust Consulting. Class Counsel is: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Defense Counsel is: Kerin Kaminski, Esq. GIFFEN & KAMINSKI, LLC 1300 E. Ninth St., Suite 1600 Cleveland, OH 441144 BAR/BRI: Plaintiffs Lawyers Take Fee Request Back to the 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that plaintiffs lawyers who obtained a $49 million settlement in an antitrust class action against the parent company of BAR/BRI are gearing up for another fight before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- this time, involving their attorney fees. Class counsel McGuireWoods, which settled the litigation in 2007, filed a notice of appeal on March 8 after U.S. District Judge Manuel Real of the Central District of California eliminated all the firm's attorney fees over an apparent conflict of interest. Two other firms serving as class counsel, New York's Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling and Washington's Finkelstein Thompson, whose fees the judge reduced, filed a separate appeal on March 15. Another lawyer filed an appeal on March 9 on behalf of the estate of Eliot Disner, the plaintiffs attorney who brought the original case. The settlement involved 300,000 class members who claimed to have paid, on average, about $1,000 in overcharges for BAR/BRI's bar examination review course on the ground that its parent company, West Publishing Corp., conspired to monopolize the market in a secret deal with Kaplan Inc., which sells preparatory courses for the Law School Aptitude Test. The appeals challenge Real's Feb. 3 finding that McGuireWoods violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to inform class members about an agreement that gave incentive awards to five class representatives based on the value of the settlement. "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," Real wrote. Real found no conflicts or ethical lapses by Finkelstein Thompson or Zwerling Schachter, but reduced their fees by 37 percent, to about $1.6 million and $1.5 million, respectively, citing "excessive fees and noncompensable work." Real did grant expenses to the three firms: about $1.2 million to Richmond, Va.-based McGuireWoods, $118,000 to Finkelstein Thompson and $35,000 to Zwerling Schachter. The appeals represent a potential second go-around before the 9th Circuit in the case. Last year, the 9th Circuit upheld the settlement but told Real to reconsider the award of attorney fees to plaintiffs counsel. The appeals court concluded that counsel on both sides of the case had created a "disturbing appearance of impropriety" because of the incentive awards that "tied the promised request to the ultimate recovery and in so doing, put class counsel and the contracting class representatives into a conflict position from day one." The panel directed Real to consider the influence those payments had on McGuireWoods, due $12 million in fees under the settlement. Sidney Kanazawa, a partner in the Los Angeles office of McGuireWoods who represents his firm in its appeal, did not respond to calls for comment on Monday. In a motion for reconsideration in February, he disputed Real's interpretation of the 9th Circuit's ruling and called the apparent conflict "harmless." "The Ninth Circuit did not limit the remand for the sole purpose of denying attorneys' fees to McGuireWoods, but rather explicitly instructed this Court to review its previous fee award in light of the Ninth Circuit opinion and California law," the motion said. Rosemary Rivas, a partner in the San Francisco office of Finkelstein Thompson who represents her firm and Zwerling Schachter in their appeal, did not return a call for comment. In her motion for reconsideration, she asked Real to reinstate the fees originally awarded to both firms because they played an instrumental role in the ultimate approval of the settlement. Real later took both motions off calendar. Zareh A. Jaltorossian, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Reed Smith who represents Sandra Disner, executor of the estate of Eliot Disner and successor-in-interest to Disner and his former firm, Disner Law Group, did not return a call for comment. Disner brought the original suit in 2006. McGuireWoods inherited the case after acquiring the firm Disner was working for at that time, Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket, that same year. Disner, whom McGuireWoods fired in 2007 after he objected to the BAR/BRI settlement, died last year. BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: Mass. Oil Spill Trial Gets Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Becky W. Evans -- a freelance journalist who writes about fisheries, environment and immigration for ThreeBeats at http://www.threebeats.wordpress.com/-- reports that a lawyer representing Mattapoisett property owners opened his case against Bouchard Transportation Co. on Tuesday by arguing that his clients lost the special privilege of swimming, strolling and sunbathing at their private beaches when a barge owned by the oil transport company negligently ran aground and spilled up to 98,000 gallons of oil into Buzzards Bay in April 2003. "That specialness came to a screeching halt when the defendant's oil came ashore," said: Martin E. Levin, Esq. STERN, SHAPIRO, WEISSBERG & GARIN LLP 90 Canal Street Boston, MA 02114-2022 Telephone: 617-742-5800 E-mail: mlevin@sswg.com In his opening statement, Mr. Levin told the Plymouth County jury that, despite cleanup activities, his clients "all experienced lingering effects of the pollution. . . . The oil was always on their minds because you could never tell when it was there." Mr. Levin promised to show why Bouchard should compensate property owners for lost rental value, even if some of them never rented their homes. "It's an objective way to measure that damage done by oil that should have never polluted those Mattapoisett shores," he said. Bouchard's defense lawyer: Ronald W. Zdrojeski, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103-3597 Telephone: 860-275-8200 E-mail: rzdrojeski@rc.com told the jury that Levin's method for calculating damages would cause "eye-rubbing and head-scratching." "We shouldn't have to pay for damages that don't exist or are exaggerated," he said. Bouchard spent "upwards of $36 million" on a comprehensive cleanup of the Buzzards Bay shoreline that was overseen and approved by federal, state and local officials, Mr. Zdrojeski said. "We relentlessly and arduously went out and found where the oil was and we cleaned it up," he said. None of the property owners was forced to leave their homes on account of the oil spill, Mr. Zdrojeski said. "This case is ultimately about use," he said. "They could still sleep in their beds and cook in the kitchen." The lawyers' opening statements launched the second day of civil trial proceedings at Plymouth County Superior Court. The trial is part of a class-action lawsuit filed against Bouchard by 1,100 Mattapoisett property owners who are seeking millions of dollars in damages related to thick fuel oil that leaked from the B. No. 120 barge after it drifted off course and ruptured its hull on submerged rocks identified in nautical charts. Both Bouchard and the mate of the Tug Evening Tide, which was pulling the barge, pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and killing 450 federally protected birds. Bouchard paid the federal government $9 million in fines, while mate Franklin Robert Hill served six months in federal prison. Mr. Zdrojeski showed the nine-woman, six-man jury a handful of black seaweed that he said some Mattapoisett residents had mistaken for oil. He also displayed two melon-sized rocks, one covered with black oil splatter and the other with what he called "plain old black algae." "Not everything they were seeing was oil," he said. Mr. Levin shared an overhead slide featuring a Geographic Information System map developed from Bouchard data that depicted varying degrees of oil pollution along the Mattapoisett shoreline. "Some of the beaches were more heavily polluted than others, but all of the properties were contaminated with some of that oil," he said. Following opening statements, prosecutors called four witnesses to testify before the jury. The witnesses included Erich Gundlach, a coastal earth scientist with E-Tech International Inc.; retired Mattapoisett Fire Chief Ronald Scott; Mark Maguire, a GIS development manager with Tetra Tech Inc.; and Bradford Chase, a Natick resident whose Mattapoisett property at 15 Seamarsh Way was contaminated by oil from the Bouchard spill. CLASSMATES.COM: Inks $9.5 Mil. Sales Practice Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Albanesius at PC Magazine reports that Classmates.com has agreed to pay more than $9.5 million to settle a class-action suit that accused the Web site of duping customers into signing up for paid services. According to a filing in Seattle District Court, Classmates.com has agreed to the settlement. Those hoping for a large payout, though, will be disappointed: The maximum amount people can collect is a check for $3. The case dates back to October 2008, when San Diego-based Anthony Michaels sued Classmates.com for lying in order to get him to pay for a subscription. Michaels signed up for a free profile in 2007 and subsequently received e-mail alerts that said former classmates were trying to find him. Classmates.com would not reveal who was looking for him until he signed up for a paid "gold membership" account, but when he did, he quickly found out that none of his former classmates had actually tried to contact him. Xavier Vasquez joined the suit in December 2008. Members who upgraded to a gold membership after Jan.1, 2007 (the sub-class) as a result of misleading e-mails or links in their inboxes are eligible to receive $3 in cash or a $2 credit toward future Classmates.com services. People who upgraded before that - dating back to October 30, 2004 - are eligible for the $2 credit. Classmates.com estimates that the sub-class could include up to 3.16 million people. If more than 3.16 million members file claims, though, that $3 payout will decrease. Messrs. Michaels and Vasquez will receive $2,500 each. Classmates.com has also agreed to pay up to $1.3 million to cover attorney fees and costs, as well as the cost of notifying class members. If the settlement is approved, The Garden City Group will handle the details. They will contact all potential class members via e-mail, and also take out an ad in The Wall Street Journal to inform people of the settlement. DIAMOND FOODS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Consumers ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Diamond Foods makes misleading claims for the health value of its walnuts. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration calls the walnuts "misbranded," and disputed Diamond's claims that "the omega-3 in walnuts can help you get the proper balance of fatty acids your body needs for promoting heart health," according to the complaint. Lead plaintiff Elliot Zeisel says the FDA found no evidence that the omega-3 in walnuts actually reduces the risk of heart disease. Despite an FDA "warning letter" that Diamond's claims violate the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, Diamond refused to remove the false and misleading statements from its labels, the class claims. The class seeks restitution, costs and an injunction. A copy of the Complaint in Zeisel v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01192 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/24/Walnuts.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: 310-392-8801 - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C. 10680 West Pico Blvd., Suite 280 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: 310-836-6000 GAMMON GOLD: Believes Class Definition Limits Potential Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liezel Hill at Mining Weekly reports that the Ontario Superior Court has certified a class action claim being brought against miner Gammon Gold brought by investors who bought shares in a 2007 public offering. However, it did not certify the claim with regard to secondary market purchases of securities or for people who bought securities outside Canada, the company said. Certification is a procedural step in the litigation and no determination has been made of the merits of the claim, Gammon said. "We believe the court's decision not to certify the claim in respect of secondary market purchases and in respect of those purchasers who acquired securities outside Canada, significantly reduces the scale of any potential claim," CEO Rene Marion said. Gammon "will continue to vigorously defend the matter", he said. The class action suit alleges that the company's 2007 prospectus contained inaccuracies with regard to production run rates. Gammon produces precious metals from two mines in Mexico. ROLLS-ROYCE: S.D. Ind. Declines to Certify Female Manager Class --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Swiatek at IndyStar.com reports that a judge has shut the door on letting more female managers at Rolls-Royce's Indianapolis operation join a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination. Randall, et. al. v. Rolls-Royce Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-cv-00860 (S.D. Ind.) (Barker, J.), was filed by two high-level female managers at Rolls-Royce who say they were passed over for promotions and paid less than their male counterparts. Sally Randall and Rona Pepmeier wanted to open their lawsuit to 537 other female engineers and managers, but Judge Sarah Evans Barker this month rejected the move, saying Mmes. Randall and Pepmeier's work experiences aren't typical of the hundreds of other women. In addition, the judge wrote, Mmes. Randall and Pepmeier at times during their careers participated in decisions about pay and bonuses for the 537 other women, creating a conflict-of-interest issue. The judge also noted that the plaintiffs' own bias expert in the case "found no evidence of disparities adverse to women" when he analyzed total compensation for all of Rolls-Royce's female managers as a group. "Our clients are disappointed" with the ruling, said Kevin Betz, Esq., a lawyer for the plaintiffs. He wouldn't comment on their next step. The judge suggested the two sides meet "forthwith" to discuss a possible settlement of Mmes. Randall and Pepmeier's individual claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin W. Betz, Esq. Sandra L. Blevins, Esq. Jamie A. Maddox, Esq. BETZ & ASSOCIATES One Indiana Square, Suite 1660 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 687-2222 E-mail: kbetz@betzadvocates.com sblevins@betzadvocates.com jmaddox@betzadvocates.com - and - Thomas J. Henderson, Esq. HENDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC 1666 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 742-7447 E-mail: tjh@hendersonfirm.net - and - Michael D. Lieder, Esq. SPRENGER & LANG PLLC 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 772-1159 E-mail: mlieder@sprengerlang.com - and - SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP 1666 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 310 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 742-7780 - and - Felicia Medina, Esq. David Weissbord Sanford, Esq. SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER LLP 1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 742-7780 E-mail: fmedina@nydclaw.com dsanford@nydclaw.com Rolls-Royce is represented by: Hannesson Ignatius Murphy, Esq. Robert Anthony Prather, Esq. Shannon Marie Shaw, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 231-7210 E-mail: hmurphy@btlaw.com tony.prather@btlaw.com sshaw@btlaw.com - and - George A. Stohner, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-1015 E-mail: gstohner@morganlewis.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Wash. & Ariz. Suits Seek Full Refunds for Autos ------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Hood at ConsumerAffairs.com reports that in the less than three months since Toyota's reputation for safety imploded, the company has been hit with dozens of class action lawsuits and personal injury suits from angry owners. But last week, a group of consumers took litigation against the carmaker to a new level, demanding a full refund in separate cases filed in Washington state and Arizona. "When we talked with Toyota owners, they all voiced the same desire -- to drive the car back to the lot, hand them the keys and pick up a check," said Steve Berman, the lawyer handling the cases. "Fortunately, we think the law allows for exactly that solution, and we are asking the courts to make it happen." Many of the class actions filed so far have focused on the recall's devastating effect on resale values -- affected Toyotas have lost between six and 15 percent of their total value since the recall was announced in January. That plunge stands in contrast to values for other brands of used cars, which have actually increased in value. A number of suits against Toyota are demanding a cash payment equal to the amount of the decline. Mr. Berman, of Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shaprio, takes issue with that relatively small-bore approach. "I don't know of any parent who would be willing to put their kids in a potentially unsafe car in exchange for a few hundred bucks," he said. A statement by Hagens Berman reiterates that stance, asserting that Toyota "produced vehicles so profoundly flawed with safety defects, and completely botched the recall process, that the only remedy is for owners to return the cars to Toyota." The suits are being brought on behalf of all residents of Washington state and Arizona who own a recalled Toyota. The firm said it expects to eventually file additional cases "in other states across the country." Plaintiffs seek revocation The plaintiffs seek to revoke their acceptance of the sales contract, and contend that Toyota breached its express warranty "because the vehicles sold to Class Members were not fully operational, safe, or reliable." The class also asserts that "Toyota exacerbated the breach by failing to provide safe automobiles after the problems were acknowledged." Both suits allege breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of the warranty-governing Magnuson Moss Act. In addition to a full refund, the plaintiffs are seeking consequential damages, "including the costs associated with purchasing safer vehicles," and an injunction prohibiting the sale of cars with a propensity for sudden acceleration. In the event that the full refund is not granted, the class is seeking damages equal to the diminution in value as a result of the defects. The suits, if approved, would have a devastating economic effect on an already-battered Toyota. The decreased-value suits alone could put the carmaker on the hook for at least $3 billion. A San Diego court will decide next week whether to consolidate over 100 separate Toyota class-actions into a single case. UNITED STATED: Judge's Rejection of 9/11 Settlement Questioned -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett at the New York Law Journal reports that Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein's rejection of a settlement between New York City and some 10,000 plaintiffs who claimed to have suffered respiratory ailments during the World Trade Center response and cleanup has left the lawyers for the plaintiffs, the city and its contractors who had spent almost two years negotiating the settlement wondering what to do next. The judge, addressing a courtroom packed with attorneys and plaintiffs last Friday, called the $575 million to $657 million settlement inadequate and potentially confusing to plaintiffs. He acknowledged that "most settlements are private" and "the judge has no part." "This is different," Hellerstein said. "This is 9/11. This is a case that has dominated my docket, and because of that, I have the power of review." The legal teams are now considering their options. They can go back to the bargaining table; proceed at full speed to trial on 12 "bellwether" cases selected by the parties and the judge; or possibly file a petition for a writ of mandamus with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping a panel will order Hellerstein to accept the settlement. The last option is problematic, as it could tie up the already marathon litigation even longer. Moreover, legal analysts on Monday said there is no precedent on point for appellate review of a judge's refusal to accept what he believes to be an inadequate settlement in mass tort litigation. Howard Erichson, who teaches complex litigation at Fordham University School of Law, said only certain types of settlements require judicial approval, such as class actions, settlements involving minors and consent judgments where there is ongoing judicial supervision. "Outside of those special situations where you need a judge's power to make it happen, I simply don't understand what gives the judge the authority here," Erichson said. Geoffrey P. Miller of New York University School of Law compares the World Trade Center cases to the Vioxx product liability litigation in New Orleans and the Zyprexa litigation before Eastern District of New York Judge Jack B. Weinstein, which some observers have called "quasi-class actions." "The judge's authority to exercise this kind of review of the settlement to protect the plaintiffs that you would see in a class action, it's very controversial," Miller said. "I'm sure the judge was acting out of the very best of intentions and protecting the very vulnerable people who can't protect themselves. However, the legal basis for the judge exercising that kind of powerful equitable authority is questionable." Hellerstein acknowledged Friday that he cannot force the city and its contractors to settle. "That's a matter of private conviction," he said. "All I can do is schedule trials and rule according to the merits." However, the judge made it clear last week he was going to take a much more aggressive role in overseeing the settlement talks. The first indication came March 15, four days before Friday's hearing, when he issued an order saying the agreement "does not provide for judicial supervision or appointment of the allocation neutral (who will make the decision on what category individual plaintiffs belong to for purposes of compensation) and the firm and panel of physicians that will assist it." The judge instructed the parties not to engage, or continue to engage, people or firms for those positions without his approval. Then, at Friday's hearing, Hellerstein said he wanted "judicial control over the process, because that's what's fair." "If I'm the judge, I can be reversed," he said. "If the parties appoint someone, he's the dictator. We don't have dictators." ATTORNEY FEES The judge also said Friday he intended to cap plaintiffs attorneys' fees below the 33 percent called for in contingency contracts and said the fees "will" be paid out of the $1.1 billion World Trade Center captive insurance fund, the same fund that will be paying the settlement. There is little dispute that judges have broader authority in the realm of attorney fees in mass tort cases. Judge Eldon Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana capped fees in the $4.85 billion Vioxx settlement at 32 percent, and Judge Weinstein capped most fees at 35 percent in the $700 million Zyprexa settlement in Brooklyn. Erichson said both Weinstein and Fallon "reviewed" the settlements even though they were not class actions. "I wondered how they could approve the settlements if they didn't have the power to approve them, but I guess, if they are approving them, it didn't seem to be a problem," he said. "Getting the judge's blessing gave the lawyers some comfort they weren't doing anything wrong." While it is unclear whether Hellerstein has the authority to reject the settlement, absent an appeal he still wields the gavel and influence over a settlement with many moving parts, including a short, 90-day window for plaintiffs to decide whether they want to be included. There is also the requirement that 95 percent of plaintiffs approve the settlement in In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 100, and the judge now has before him a series of defense motions to dismiss many of the cases based on the immunity granted to those acting in response to civic disasters. Lead lawyers Paul Napoli, of Worby Groner & Napoli, Bern for the plaintiffs, and James Tyrrell Jr., of Patton Boggs for the city, declined comment Monday. YELP! INC: Furniture Restorer Files Third Extortion Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hefflinger at Digital Media Wire reports that Yelp, the provider of local restaurant and business reviews, is now the target of a third class action lawsuit related to charges it altered the reviews of businesses who declined to purchase advertising on Yelp.com. The new suit, filed by the owner of Renaissance Furniture Restoration in San Francisco, charges that Yelp's reviews are not "unbiased" as the company claims, since several positive reviews were allegedly removed after it declined an ad sales pitch from Yelp. The two previous class action suits filed against Yelp make largely similar claims, and today nine small businesses joined the list of plaintiffs in one of the other suits. Yelp co-founder and CEO wrote on the company's blog that the lawsuits "are borne from a lack of understanding of how Yelp works to provide customers with useful information about local businesses and protect users from fake, or shill, reviews." He adds that the company "will fight [the lawsuits] aggressively and we believe we will win." * Securities Class Action Settlements Were $3.8 Billion in 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------- According to Securities Class Action Settlements: 2009 Review and Analysis, an annual report by Cornerstone Research, the value and number of securities class action settlements increased in 2009 from 2008. Securities class action settlements totaled $3.8 billion in 2009, a jump of more than 35 percent from 2008. The study identifies a total of 103 settlements approved in 2009, up slightly over the 97 settlements in 2008. The average settlement value increased from $28 million for settlements in 2008 to $37 million for settlements in 2009. The largest industry concentration among 2009 settled cases was in the financial sector, but these settlements primarily were for case filings with class periods ending prior to 2008. Securities case filings related to the credit crisis in 2008, for the most part, are yet to be resolved. Commentary Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with Cornerstone Research, made the following observations about the settlements report. * "The classic litigation risk factors continue to run true to form. If a lawsuit is prosecuted by a large public pension fund, involves a parallel SEC proceeding, and alleges accounting violations, then defendants can be expected to pay higher amounts." * "Because securities fraud litigation typically settles three to five years after the first complaint is filed, this year's settlement activity reflects lawsuits brought roughly between 2004 and 2006. Given litigation trends over those years, the 2009 settlement data are within the zone of expected settlements, and aren't much of a surprise." Professor Laura Simmons of the College of William & Mary Mason School of Business and Cornerstone Research Senior Advisor, made the following observations. * "As we predicted last year, the decline in settlements that occurred in 2008 has proven to be temporary. Looking ahead, we anticipate that as cases brought in conjunction with the 2008 stock market decline and surrounding credit- crisis issues are resolved, settlements are likely to continue to increase both in number and value." * "While financial statement restatements reportedly have been declining in recent years, this trend has yet to be borne out in securities case settlements, as restatements were associated with 45 percent of cases settled in 2009 (the highest proportion in more than a decade)." Key Findings * The median settlement in 2009 was $8 million, unchanged from 2008. While this is lower than the inflation-adjusted median of $9.3 million in 2007, it is higher than the median for all cases settled from 1996 through 2008. * Estimated "plaintiff-style" damages for all cases settled in 2009 averaged $2.7 billion, a 35 percent increase, adjusted for inflation, over the average for 2008 settlements. * Inflation-adjusted median Disclosure Dollar Loss-the dollar value decrease in the defendant firm's market capitalization at the end of the class period-for cases settled in 2009 was approximately $140 million, an increase of nearly 15 percent over the inflation-adjusted median for 2008. * Institutional investors continued to participate actively in post-Reform Act securities class actions and served as lead plaintiffs in nearly 65 percent of 2009 settlements. * Cases involving public pensions as lead plaintiffs were associated with significantly higher settlements. * Approximately 45 percent of 2009 settlements involved companion derivative actions, slightly higher than the 40 percent in 2008. Derivative actions tended to be associated with larger class actions and significantly higher settlement amounts. * Alleged violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) were included in more than 65 percent of settled cases in 2009. Cases with GAAP allegations had larger settlement amounts and a higher percentage of estimated damages compared with cases not involving accounting allegations. * The Ninth Circuit (California/Alaska/Arizona/Hawaii/Idaho/ Montana/Nevada/Oregon/ Washington) had the highest number of settled cases in 2009 with 28 settlements, followed by the Second Circuit (New York/Connecticut/Vermont) with 22 cases settled. The full text of the Securities Class Action Settlements: 2009 Review and Analysis report is available at the Cornerstone Research Web site at http://securities.cornerstone.com/and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse Web site at http://securities.stanford.edu/ About Cornerstone Research Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com/-- provides economic and financial consulting and expert testimony and cosponsors the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Records $3.236B Gross Liability at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense was US$3.236 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$3.443 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's net asbestos liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense was US$1.151 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.2 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's gross IBNR (incurred but not reported) liability relating to asbestos claims was US$2.233 billion at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$2.550 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's net IBNR liability relating to asbestos claims was US$934 billion at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.038 billion at Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in New York, American International Group, Inc. is an insurance firm. It provides insurance property/casualty and specialty insurance to commercial, institutional, and individual customers in the U.S. Overseas, the Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and retirement services, asset management, and financial services (including financing commercial aircraft leasing) in more than 120 countries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Records 5,417 Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. recorded 5,417 asbestos claims as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 5,780 asbestos claims as of Dec. 31, 2008. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 615 claims opened during the year, 243 claims settled during the year, and 735 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 639 claims opened during the year, 219 claims settled during the year, and 1,203 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved. The Company's gross asbestos survival ratio was 4.7 years during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 5.2 years during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's net asbestos survival ratio was 3.7 years during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 3.7 years during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in New York, American International Group, Inc. is an insurance firm. It provides insurance property/casualty and specialty insurance to commercial, institutional, and individual customers in the U.S. Overseas, the Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and retirement services, asset management, and financial services (including financing commercial aircraft leasing) in more than 120 countries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer's Quigley Unit Still Faces Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc.'s Quigley Company, Inc. unit, which was acquired in 1968 and sold small amounts of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s, continues to be party to asbestos-related lawsuits. In September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps intended to resolve all pending and future claims against the Company and Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or mixed dust. The Company recorded a charge of US$369 million before-tax (US$229 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2004 in connection with these matters. In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York seeking reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court that needed the approval of both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after receipt of the vote of 75 percent of the claimants. In connection with that filing, the Company entered into settlement agreements with lawyers representing more than 80 percent of the individuals with claims related to Quigley products against Quigley and the Company. The agreements provide for a total of US$430 million in payments, of which US$215 million became due in December 2005 and is being paid to claimants upon receipt by the Company of certain required documentation from each of the claimants. The reorganization plan provided for the establishment of a Trust for the payment of all remaining pending claims as well as any future claims alleging injury from exposure to Quigley products. As certified by the balloting agent in May 2006, more than 75 percent of Quigley's claimants holding claims that represented more than two-thirds in value of claims against Quigley voted to accept Quigley's plan of reorganization. In August 2006, in reviewing the voting tabulation methodology, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that certain votes that accepted the plan were not predicated upon the actual value of the claim. As a result, the reorganization plan was not accepted. In June 2007, Quigley filed an amended plan of reorganization that was intended to address the Bankruptcy Court's concerns regarding the voting tabulation methodology. In February 2008, the Bankruptcy Court authorized Quigley to solicit its amended reorganization plan for acceptance by claimants. According to the official report filed with the court by the balloting agent in July 2008, the requisite number of votes was cast in favor of the amended plan of reorganization. The Bankruptcy Court held a confirmation hearing, which concluded in December 2009, at which objections to the plan's confirmation were presented. Briefing on legal issues related to the confirmation hearing will conclude in February 2010, and thereafter the Bankruptcy Court will determine whether to approve the plan. If approved by the claimants and the courts, the amended reorganization plan will result in a permanent injunction directing all pending and future claims alleging personal injury from exposure to Quigley products to the Trust. Under the amended reorganization plan, the Company will contribute to the Trust US$405 million through a note as well as approximately US$100 million in cash and insurance, and will forgive a US$76 million secured loan to Quigley. In addition, the Company entered into an agreement with the representative of future claimants that provides for the contribution to the Trust of an additional amount with a present value of US$88.4 million. In a separately negotiated transaction with an insurance company in August 2004, the Company agreed to a settlement related to certain insurance coverage that provides for payments to the Company over a 10-year period of amounts totaling US$405 million. Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company. Its diversified global health care portfolio includes human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and vaccines, as well as nutritional products and many of the world's best-known consumer health care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Facing 100T Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2009, about 100,000 claims naming American Optical Corporation and other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. As of Dec. 31, 2008, about 104,000 claims naming American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other hazardous materials. (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2009) Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner- Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means to resolve, these claims. Several of the insurance carriers that provided coverage for the American Optical asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials claims have denied coverage. Warner-Lambert believes that these carriers' position is without merit and is pursuing legal proceedings against such carriers. Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company. Its diversified global health care portfolio includes human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and vaccines, as well as nutritional products and many of the world's best-known consumer health care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gibsonburg Actions Still Ongoing v. Pfizer Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer Inc. in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company. Gibsonburg was acquired by the Company in the 1960s and sold small amounts of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s. There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by the Company or its subsidiaries. Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company. Its diversified global health care portfolio includes human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and vaccines, as well as nutritional products and many of the world's best-known consumer health care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Facing 50,000 Open Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., had 50,000 asbestos claims outstanding at the end of 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 1, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Crown Cork is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork. Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs. Crown Cork received 2,000 new claims during 2009, 3,000 new claims during 2008, and 4,000 new claims during 2007. Crown Cork settled or dismissed 2,000 claims during 2009, 3,000 claims during 2008, and 4,000 claims during 2007. The outstanding claims at Dec. 31, 2009 exclude 33,000 pending claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were, maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos, but whose claims the Company believes will not have a material effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flow. The outstanding claims at Dec. 31, 2009 also exclude about 19,000 inactive claims. Of the 50,000 claims outstanding at the end of 2009, about 96 percent were filed by plaintiffs who do not claim a specific amount of damages or claim a minimum amount as established by court rules relating to jurisdiction; about two percent were filed by plaintiffs who claim damages of less than US$5 million; about two percent were filed by plaintiffs who claim damages from US$5 million to less than US$100 million (91 percent of whom claim damages from US$10 million to less than US$25 million) and three were filed by plaintiffs who claim damages ranging from US$162 million to US$185 million. The Company recorded pre-tax charges of US$55 million during 2009, US$25 million during 2008 and US$29 million during 2007 to increase its accrual. The Company made asbestos-related payments of US$26 million during 2009, US$25 during 2008 and US$26 during 2007. The Company settled claims totaling US$17 million during 2009, US$15 million during 2008 and US$15 million during 2007. The Company had outstanding accruals of US$230 million during 2009, US$201 during 2008 and US$201 million during 2007. The Company estimates that its probable and estimable asbestos liability for pending and future asbestos claims and related legal costs is US$230 million at the end of 2009, including US$174 million for unasserted claims and US$1 million for committed settlements that will be paid in 2010. Historically (1977-2009), Crown Cork estimates that about one- quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after 1964. Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods. The Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage, household and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures and caps. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Crown Court in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is still involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas courts. In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's assets. In May 2006, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld a grant of summary judgment to Crown Cork and upheld the state constitutionality of the statute (Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Tex.). The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by the plaintiff to the Texas Supreme Court. A favorable ruling for summary judgment in an asbestos case pending against Crown Cork in the district court of Travis County, Texas (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 03-04-00518-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin) has been reversed on appeal on state constitutional grounds due to retroactive application of the statute. Although the Company said it believes that the Texas legislation is constitutional, there can be no assurance that the legislation will be upheld by the Texas Supreme Court on appeal. Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods. The Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage, household and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures and caps. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suits Still Ongoing v. Crown Cork in Pa. Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, is still involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Pennsylvania courts. In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002), which held that the statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application. On Feb. 6, 2009, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, due to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas' dismissal of three cases against Crown Cork raising federal and state constitutional challenges to the amended statute (Stea v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et. al, No. 2956 EDA 2006). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has accepted an appeal of the decision. The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld. Adverse rulings in cases challenging the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania statute could have a material impact on the Company. Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods. The Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage, household and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures and caps. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Facing 34,451 Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2009, was a defendant in 34,451 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 1, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has been a defendant in asbestos litigation for about 20 years. Also, 33,325 of these lawsuits have been brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm (MARDOC) and seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally allege that they formerly worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related injuries from products that General Cable ceased manufacturing in the mid-1970s. The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996 dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed them on an inactive administrative docket. To reinstate a MARDOC case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show that the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos- related injury, but also must produce specific product identification evidence to proceed against an individual defendant. During 2009 the District Court identified about 230 cases in which plaintiffs were to identify defendants against whom they could proceed. The Company was not identified by plaintiffs in any of the aforementioned cases. With regards to the 1,126 remaining non-maritime cases, the Company has aggressively defended these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to the Company manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of General Cable product. In the last 20 years, the Company has had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, the Company was dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. For cases outside the MDL as of Dec. 31, 2009, Plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in about 278 cases. In 135 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about US$233,000 per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 138 other cases pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek about US$276 million in damages from as many as 110 defendants. In five cases, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to the Company in the amount of US$2.1 million. In addition, in relation to these 278 cases, there are claims of US$112 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. To date, the Company has resolved the claims of about 11,395 plaintiffs. The cumulative average settlement through December 31, 2009 has been about US$575 per case. However, the average settlements paid to resolve litigation in 2009 and 2008 have increased significantly above that amount as the mix of cases currently being listed for trial in state courts and those which may be listed in the future, which may need to be resolved, involve more serious asbestos related injuries. The Company had accrued on its balance sheet, on a gross basis, a liability of US$5.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 and US$5 million as of Dec. 31, 2008 for asbestos-related claims and had recorded insurance recoveries of about US$500,000. The net amount of US$4.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 (US$4.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2008) represents the Company's best estimate in order to cover resolution of future asbestos-related claims. Headquartered in Highland Heights, Ky., General Cable Corporation develops, designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and installs copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Capital Cites $252M Unpaid Losses at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- XL Capital Ltd's gross unpaid losses and loss expenses for asbestos exposure claims were US$252,885,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$281,992,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's net unpaid losses and loss expenses for asbestos exposure claims were US$100,922,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$111,860,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Incurred but not reported losses for asbestos and environmental exposures, net of reinsurance, was US$68.5 million in 2009, US$73.5 million in 2008 and US$73.1 million in 2007. The Company had 1,437 open claim files for potential asbestos exposures as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 1,546 open claim files as of Dec. 31, 2008. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had 221 new claims reported and 330 claims resolved. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had 257 new claims reported and 427 claims resolved. Headquartered in Bermuda, XL Capital Ltd is a global insurance and reinsurance company providing property, casualty and specialty products to industrial, commercial and professional firms, insurance companies and other enterprises on a worldwide basis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Teledyne Tech. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Teledyne Technologies Incorporated has been joined, among a number of defendants (often over 100), in lawsuits alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. The Company has not incurred material liabilities in connection with these lawsuits. The filings typically do not identify any of its products as a source of asbestos exposure, and the Company has been dismissed from cases for lack of product identification, but only after some defense costs have been incurred. Also, because of the prominent "Teledyne" name, the Company may be mistakenly joined in lawsuits involving a company or business that was not assumed by us as part of its 1999 spin-off. Certain gas generators manufactured by Teledyne Energy Systems, Inc. contain a sealed, wetted asbestos component. Headquartered in Thousand Oaks, Calif., Teledyne Technologies Incorporated provides sophisticated electronic components and subsystems, instrumentation and communications products, including defense electronics, monitoring and control instrumentation, harsh environment interconnect products, data acquisition and communications equipment, and components and subsystems for wireless and satellite communications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Still Party to Injury Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- BlueLinx Holdings Inc. says that Georgia-Pacific is a defendant in suits brought in various courts around the nation by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to products containing asbestos. These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by Georgia- Pacific. Prior to May 7, 2004, certain of the Company's assets were owned by the distribution division of Georgia-Pacific Corporation. The Division commenced operations in 1954 with 13 warehouses primarily used as an outlet for Georgia-Pacific's plywood. On May 7, 2004, Georgia-Pacific sold the assets of the Division to ABP, which subsequently merged into BlueLinx Holdings Inc. Headquartered in Atlanta, BlueLinx Holdings Inc., operating through its wholly owned subsidiary, BlueLinx Corporation, distributes building products in the United States. As of Jan. 2, 2010, the Company distributed more than 10,000 products to about 11,500 customers through its network of more than 70 warehouses and third-party operated warehouses. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chem. Unit Still Facing Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation that was acquired in 1978 and sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. To date, the majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. It is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about US$8,500,000 (excluding costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary has challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response to this challenge, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 and in the first quarter of 2007 for US$15 million and US$20 million, respectively. The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement are structured to be received over a four-year period with annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was received early in the second quarter of 2007, the second of which was received in the first quarter of 2008 and the third of which was received in the first quarter of 2009. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay 27 percent of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. Headquartered in Conshohocken, Pa., Quaker Chemical Corporation develops, produces, and sells formulated chemical specialty products for various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in addition, offers and markets chemical management services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Fin'l. Cites $114MM Reserves in 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cincinnati Financial Corporation carried US$118 million of net loss and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims as of year-end 2009, compared with US$114 million for such claims as of year-end 2008. These amounts constitute 3.2 percent in 2009 and 3.3 percent in 2008 of total loss and loss expense reserves as of these year-end dates. The Company said it believes its exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is limited, largely because its reinsurance retention was US$500,000 or below prior to 1987. The Company also predominantly was a personal lines company in the 1960s and 1970s when asbestos and pollution exclusions were not widely used. During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a percentage of the Company's overall business and its exposure to asbestos and environmental claims grew accordingly. Moreover, since 2002, the Company has revised policy terms where permitted by state regulation to limit its exposure to mold claims prospectively and further reduce its exposure to other environmental claims generally. Headquartered in Fairfield, Ohio, Cincinnati Financial Corporation's main business is property casualty insurance marketed through independent insurance agents in 37 states. At year-end 2009, the Company employed 4,170 associates, with 2,965 headquarters associates providing support to 1,205 field associates. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Facing 105 Actions in Miss., Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is defending about 105 lawsuits in different jurisdictions, with the greatest number filed in Mississippi and California state courts, alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. The complaints in these cases typically name a large number of defendants and do not identify any particular Watts products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date, the Company has obtained a dismissal in every case before it has reached trial because discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to any Watts products. Headquartered in North Andover, Mass., Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is a global manufacturer of products and systems focused on the control, conservation and quality of water and the comfort and safety of the people using it. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Still Party to Aaron Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to be involved in the asbestos lawsuit styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Company et al. Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones County, Miss. The Company assumed the Aaron action in connection with its acquisition of TODCO. This is the case used to refer to several cases that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002. The complaints name as defendants certain of TODCO's subsidiaries and certain subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent to whom TODCO may owe indemnity. The complaints also name other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos that are the subject of the complaints. The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each complaint ranges from about 20 to 70. The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act. The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. All of these cases were assigned to a special master who has approved a form of questionnaire to be completed by plaintiffs so that claims made would be properly served against specific defendants. About 700 questionnaires were returned and the remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire reply, have had their suits dismissed without prejudice. Of the respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by TODCO and its former parent which could lead to claims against either company, even though many of these plaintiffs did not state in their questionnaire answers that the employment actually involved exposure to asbestos. After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further required to file a separate and individual amended complaint naming those defendants against whom they had a direct claim as identified in the questionnaire answers. Defendants not identified in the amended complaints were dismissed from the plaintiffs' litigation. To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as a defendant in their amended complaints. It is possible that some of the plaintiffs who have filed amended complaints and have not named TODCO as a defendant may attempt to add TODCO as a defendant in the future when case discovery begins and greater attention is given to each individual plaintiff's employment background. The Company continues to monitor a small group of these other cases. The Company has not determined which entity would be responsible for such claims under the Master Separation Agreement between TODCO and its former parent. Headquartered in Houston, Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water drilling and marine services to the oil and natural gas exploration and production industry globally. The Company provides these services to national oil and gas companies, major integrated energy companies and independent oil and natural gas operators. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren, Units Face 75 Pending Suits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries faced 75 asbestos-related lawsuits as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 26, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company and its subsidiaries: Union Electric Company (UE), Central Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS), Ameren Energy Generating Company (Genco), Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO) and Illinois Power Company (IP) have been named in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. The total number of defendants named in each case is significant; as many as 192 parties are named in some pending cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases that were pending as of Dec. 31, 2009, the average number of parties were 71. The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs' activities at our present or former electric generating plants. Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company (AERG). Most of IP's plants were transferred to a former parent subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of IP. As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO generating plants, CIPS and CILCO have contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated with asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the transfer. As of Dec. 31, 2009, nine asbestos-related lawsuits were pending against Electric Energy, Inc. (EEI). The general liability insurance maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company (US$14 million), UE (US$4 million), CIPS (US$3 million), CILCO (US$2 million) and IP (US$5 million) had liabilities recorded to represent their best estimate of their obligations related to asbestos claims. IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following terms: 90 percent of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in base electric rates are recovered by IP from a trust fund established by IP. At Dec. 31, 2009, the trust fund balance was about US$23 million, including accumulated interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base rates, IP will contribute 90 percent of the difference to the fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90 percent of allowed cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. Headquartered in St. Louis, Ameren Corporation distributes electricity to 2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost one million customers in Missouri and Illinois through utility subsidiaries AmerenUE, AmerenCIPS, AmerenCILCO, and AmerenIP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Re Cites $1.74B Reserves for A&E Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.'s subsidiary, General Re Corporation, had gross reserves for asbestos and environmental matters of US$1.738 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009. Overall industry-wide loss experience data and informed judgment are used when internal loss data is of limited reliability, such as in setting the estimates for mass tort, asbestos and hazardous waste. Unpaid mass tort reserves at Dec. 31, 2009 were about US$1.7 billion gross and US$1.3 billion net of reinsurance. Those reserves were about US$1.8 billion gross and US$1.2 billion net of reinsurance as of Dec. 31, 2008. Mass tort net claims paid were about US$87 million in 2009. In 2009, ultimate loss estimates for asbestos and environmental claims were increased by US$83 million. In addition to the previously described methodologies, the Company considers "survival ratios" based on net claim payments in recent years versus net unpaid losses as a rough guide to reserve adequacy. The survival ratio based on claims payments made over the last three years was about 14.5 years as of Dec. 31, 2009. The insurance industry's comparable survival ratio for asbestos and pollution reserves was about eight years. Headquartered in Omaha, Nebr., Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business activities. The most important of these are insurance businesses conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Has $10.6Bil A&E, Injury Liabilities --------------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.'s liabilities for environmental, asbestos and latent injury claims and claims expenses net of reinsurance recoverables were about US$10.6 billion at Dec. 31, 2009 and US$10.7 billion at Dec. 31, 2008. These liabilities included about US$9.1 billion at Dec. 31, 2009 and US$9.2 billion at Dec. 31, 2008 of liabilities assumed under retroactive reinsurance contracts. Liabilities arising from retroactive contracts with exposure to claims of this nature are generally subject to aggregate policy limits. In 2007, the Company entered into a reinsurance agreement with Equitas, a London based entity established to reinsure and manage the 1992 and prior years' non-life insurance and reinsurance liabilities of the Names or Underwriters at Lloyd's of London. Under the agreement as amended, the Company has agreed to provide up to US$7 billion of reinsurance to Equitas in excess of its undiscounted loss and allocated loss adjustment expense reserves as of March 31, 2006. The agreement requires that the Company pay all claims and related costs that arise from the underlying insurance and reinsurance contracts of Equitas, subject to the aforementioned excess limit of indemnification. Headquartered in Omaha, Nebr., Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business activities. The most important of these are insurance businesses conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Cites $122.7M Gross A&E Reserve at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings, Inc.'s gross loss reserves for asbestos and environmental claims amounted to US$122.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$143.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's net loss reserves for A&E claims amounted to US$93 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$125.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company, through its subsidiary Argonaut Insurance Company, is exposed to asbestos liability at the primary level through claims filed against its direct insureds, as well as through its position as a reinsurer of other primary carriers. Argonaut Insurance Company has direct liability arising primarily from policies issued from the 1960s to the early 1980s which pre- dated policy contract wording that excluded asbestos exposure. The majority of the direct policies were issued on behalf of small contractors or construction companies. Argonaut Insurance Company also assumed risk as a reinsurer, primarily for the period from 1970 to 1975, a portion of which was assumed from the London market. Argonaut Insurance Company also reinsured risks on policies written by domestic carriers. Such reinsurance typically provided coverage for limits attaching at a relatively high level which are payable only after other layers of reinsurance are exhausted. Some of the claims now being filed on policies reinsured by Argonaut Insurance Company are on behalf of claimants who may have been exposed at some time to asbestos incorporated into buildings they occupied, but have no apparent medical problems resulting from such exposure. Additionally, lawsuits are being brought against businesses that were not directly involved in the manufacture or installation of materials containing asbestos. Headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda, Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is an international underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance products in the property and casualty market. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Records 3,431 Open Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. recorded 3,431 asbestos and environmental claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 4,409 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 1,633 A&E claims closed during the year and 655 claims opened during the year. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 1,335 claims closed during the year and 527 claims opened during the year. Settlement of litigation in the second quarter of 2009 pertaining to a single asbestos case accounted for 138 of the 157 direct claims that were established in 2009. New claims in the reinsurance assumed categories are primarily the result of the Company typically providing coverage for higher limits which are payable only after other layers of reinsurance are exhausted. Additionally, there tend to be long delays in the ceding companies reporting claims to the reinsurers. Total gross payments for A&E claims amounted to US$51 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$22.8 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda, Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is an international underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance products in the property and casualty market. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 955 Actions Pending v. TriMas Corp. at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2009, was a party to about 955 pending cases involving an aggregate of about 7,816 claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials. These materials were formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. During the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 586 claims filed, 254 claims settled, and 40 claims settled. The average settlement amount per claim was US$4,644 and the total defense costs were US$2,652,000. During the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 723 claims filed, 2,668 claims dismissed, and 75 claims settled. The average settlement amount per claim was US$1,813 and the total defense costs were US$3,448,000. In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. Of the 7,816 claims pending at Dec. 31, 2009, about 96 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). About 71 of the 96 claims sought between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which includes compensatory and punitive damages), about 21 sought between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which includes compensatory and punitive damages) and four sought over US$10 million in total damages (which includes compensatory and punitive damages). Solely with respect to compensatory damages, about 74 of the 96 claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000, about 18 sought between US$1 million and US$5 million and four sought over US$5 million. Solely with respect to punitive damages, about 71 of the 96 claims sought between US$0 and US$2.5 million, about 20 sought between US$2.5 million and US$5 million and five sought over US$5 million. In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been about US$5.4 million. To date, about 50 percent of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in- place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. Headquartered in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., TriMas Corporation manufactures and distributes products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Actions Still Ongoing v. Baldor Electric ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baldor Electric Company is named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was allegedly used in certain components of its products many years ago. Currently, there are hundreds of claimants in lawsuits that name the Company as a defendant, together with hundreds of other companies. The great bulk of the complaints, however, do not identify any of the Company's products or specify which of these claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to the Company's products; and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will never identify any of its products. Headquartered in Fort Smith, Ark., Baldor Electric Company markets, designs, and manufactures industrial electric motors, mechanical power transmission products, drives, and generators, currently supplying over 10,000 customers in more than 200 industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. VWR Funding ---------------------------------------------------------------- VWR Funding, Inc. continues to be party to litigation resulting from the alleged prior distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of the Company's predecessors or acquired companies. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed on March 15, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in West Chester, Pa., VWR Funding, Inc. provides distribution services to a highly fragmented supply chain by offering products from manufacturers to a large number of customers. Products the Company distributes include chemicals, glassware, equipment, instruments, protective clothing, production supplies and other assorted laboratory products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYMAGIC Cites $46.7MM for A&E Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- NYMAGIC, INC.'s gross reserves for asbestos/environmental policies amounted to US$46.7 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$48.8 million at Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's ceded reserves for A&E policies amounted to US$36.4 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$37.3 million at Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's net loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for A&E policies amounted to US$10.3 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$11.5 million at Dec. 31, 2008. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company noted 85 A&E claims reported, 123 claims settled/dismissed or otherwise resolved and 329 claims pending. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 88 A&E claims reported, 105 claims settled/dismissed or otherwise resolved and 367 claims pending. Headquartered in New York, NYMAGIC, INC. is a holding company that owns and operates insurance companies, risk bearing entities and insurance underwriters and managers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Still Has 861 W.Va. Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s total number of claims alleging exposure to asbestos was 861 in West Virginia and four in Pennsylvania, as of Dec. 31, 2009. Allegheny's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have been named as defendants, along with multiple other defendants, in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the Company. These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Company's generation facilities. The Company's historical operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London. Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers, and the Company said it believes that it has sufficient insurance to respond fully to the asbestos suits. Certain insurers, however, have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits. The Company is currently involved in two asbestos and environmental insurance-related actions: -- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington County, Md.) and -- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.). The Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company resolved their dispute and, therefore, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS was voluntarily dismissed. The parties seek a declaration of coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental claims. Headquartered in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated energy business that owns and operates electric generation facilities and delivers electric services to customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. Its operations are organized into two business segments: the Merchant Generation segment and the Regulated Operations segment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Still Subject to Liability Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Deere & Company is still subject to unresolved legal actions, which include asbestos-related liability actions. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2010. Headquartered in Moline, Ill., Deere & Company makes farm equipment and produces construction, forestry, industrial, and lawn care equipment. The Company makes 60 percent of its sales in North America. ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Fin'l. Cites $2Mil for Claims in '09 ---------------------------------------------------------------- State Auto Financial Corporation has asbestos reserves of US$2 million in 2009. Asbestos reserves decreased US$1.4 million from 2008. The Company's asbestos reserves were US$3.4 million for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2009) Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, State Auto Financial Corporation is primarily engaged in writing both personal and business lines of insurance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Great Lakes, Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and its former subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership, are still party to pending asbestos- related lawsuits. The Company, or NATCO, is named as a defendant in about 264 lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury, primarily pleural abnormality or asbestosis, from exposure to asbestos on the Company's vessels. Most of these lawsuits have been filed in the Northern District of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of Michigan. All of the cases filed against the Company prior to 1996 were administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since that time have similarly been administratively transferred to the inactive docket. Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to reinstate the cases at a future date without being barred by the statute of limitations. By order dated Oct. 29, 2009, however, the presiding judge reactivated 512 lawsuits in an effort to clean out the administrative docket and has stated that he intends to reactivate about 250 cases each month. Five of the cases reactivated to date name the Company as a defendant. Of these five cases, one of the plaintiffs has elected not to pursue his claims. The remaining four cases are proceeding through the discovery process. Headquartered in Oak Brook, Ill., Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation provides dredging services in the East, West and Gulf Coasts of the United States and worldwide. The Company also owns a majority interest in NASDI, a demolition services provider located in the Boston area. The Company operates in two reportable segments: dredging and demolition. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Specialty Still Facing Liability Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. continues to be involved in various product liability, personal injury, and other legal proceedings, including actions that allege harm caused by products the Company has allegedly made or used, containing asbestos. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. produces thermosetting resins, or thermosets, and produces adhesive and structural resins and coatings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bridgwater Resident's Death Linked to Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at the Bridgwater Town Hall in Bridgwater, Somerset, England, heard that the death of 72-year-old Geoffrey Matthews was related to workplace exposure the asbestos, the Weston & Somerset Mercury reports. During the inquest, coroner Michael Rose read a letter from Mr. Matthews. A postmortem report was also read out, which said Mr. Matthews' medical cause of death was malignant mesothelioma. The letter explained how Mr. Matthews had worked for heating engineering companies, councils and the Ministry of Defence during the 1950s and 1960s. The letter read, "I was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2008. I worked for Ealing Borough Council and for heating engineers in Ealing and Basingstoke. I also spent time working for the Ministry of Defence in army training camps taking out the old insulation and taking asbestos from old boilers. I did other work mixing asbestos with water and putting it in pipes." Mr. Rose gave a detailed history of the former employment Mr. Matthews and concluded that this would have contributed to his illness. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Asbestos at Kwinana Station --------------------------------------------------------------- The State Opposition of Western Australia says workers at the Kwinana power station have been allegedly exposed to asbestos, ABC News reports. Workers at the Verve-operated plant were sent home on paid leave after asbestos was detected at a demolition site on March 23, 2010. The Opposition Leader Eric Ripper says if the power station is contaminated, the health of the workers is at risk. Worksafe says Verve followed the correct procedures after the discovery of the asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Action v. CSX Filed on March 9 in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glenn A. Williams, Richard D. Cocke, Vincente E. Leal, Ronald Kidd, Melvin Denhart, Jesus Zavala and Pascual Santiago, on March 9, 2010, filed an asbestos-related suit against CSX Transportation Inc. in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. The plaintiffs' work for CSX ranged from 1959 until 2008. Throughout their careers, the plaintiffs claim they worked around asbestos-containing products, sand, coal, rock, granite, iron, aluminum, bauxite, carbon black, coke and other products transported by CSX. According to the suit, because of their exposure to the materials, the plaintiffs developed pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and other health condition that have caused them to experience a diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancy. The plaintiffs seek a judgment of at least US$100,000 each, plus other relief the court deems just. Daniel R. Francis, Esq., of Francis Law Firm in St. Louis will be representing them in Case No. 10-L-252. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Case v. 22 Firms Filed in Jefferson Co. --------------------------------------------------------------- George Warren filed an asbestos lawsuit against 22 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. Mr. Warren claims he was diagnosed with asbestos-related disease after working from 1948 until 1979 as an electrician's helper, pipe cutter, welder, painter, operator, foreman and laborer. Defending companies named in the complaint include A.O. Smith Corp., American Cyanamid Company, American Optical Corp., Ametek Inc., CBS Corp., Certainteed Corp., Chevron, Cleaver Brooks, Cytec Industries, Dana Companies, Garlock Sealing Technologies, Goodrich Corp., Greene Tweed and Co., Honeywell International, Huntsman Petrochemical Corp., Ingersoll-Rand Co., John Crane, Owens-Illinois, Texaco, Union Oil Company of California and Unocal Corp. In the lawsuit, Mr. Warren seeks actual and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief to which he may be entitled. Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will represent Mr. Warren. Case No. E186-167 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Actions Filed on March 10 in St. Clair County ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three asbestos lawsuits, on March 10, 2010, were filed in St. Clair County District Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. John Weir filed the sixth St. Clair County Circuit Court asbestos suit of 2010 while James and Susan Keller filed the seventh and Susan and Kenneth Brock filed the eighth. In their complaint, the Kellers allege nine defendant companies caused Mr. Keller to develop pleural plaques after his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career. Mr. Keller worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA from 1969 until 1971; as an assistant team manager at Roadway Express until 1977; as an assistant terminal manager in 1978; as a laborer, estimator and vice president at James A. Keller Inc. from 1969 until 1994; and as the vice president and owner of Grayhawk from 1994 until now, according to the complaint. According to the Brocks' complaint filed against 10 defending companies, Mrs. Brock developed lung cancer after her work as a kitchen server at Lutheran Hospital from 1966 until 1969, as a packer and assembler at General Electric Co. from 1969 until 1974, as a machine operator at Harvester from 1976 until 1981, as a painter at Rosener Decorating from 1983 until 1986, as a truck driver and loader at Purolator Courier from 1986 until 1989, as a package handler and courier at Fed Ex from 1989 until 1997, as a driver for Statewide Medical from 1998 until 1999 and as a truck driver from 1999 until 2007. In Mr. Weir's complaint against 13 defendant companies, he claims to have developed lung cancer after his work for the U.S. Army from 1973 until 1974, as a boiler builder at Mike Russo Plumbing in the 1970s, as a worker coating pipes with asbestos for Weinstein in the 1970s and as an insulator at J.A. Croson from 1984 until 1986. In their six-count suit, the Kellers seek a judgment of more than US$200,000 and compensatory damages of more than US$100,000, plus other relief the court deems just. They also seek unspecified punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the defendants from similar conduct in the future. In their 10-count complaint, the Brocks seek a judgment of more than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000, unspecified punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the defendants from similar conduct in the future, more than US$150,000 in punitive and exemplary damages and more than US$150,000 in economic damages, plus other relief the court deems just. In his five-count complaint, Mr. Weir seeks compensatory damages of more than US$100,000, punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the defendants from similar conduct in the future, punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$100,000 and a judgment of more than US$50,000, plus other relief the court deems just. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will be representing all the plaintiffs in Case Nos. 10-L-111, 10-L-112, and 10-L-113. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Allows Chubb to File Action v. Travelers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, on March 22, 2010, ruled that Chubb Indemnity Insurance Co. can sue Travelers Insurance Cos. for allegedly concealing a policyholder's asbestos problems, despite an agreement protecting Travelers from future asbestos lawsuits, Business Insurance reports. The Appeals Court reversed rulings by a district court and bankruptcy court related to Travelers' involvement with Johns Manville Corp., a Denver insulation manufacturer. Manville filed for bankruptcy in 1982. To deal with the potential asbestos claims, a federal bankruptcy court judge in 1986 approved a unique settlement creating the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust to settle asbestos claims. Under the agreement, Manville's liability insurers contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the trust in exchange for immunity from future claims related to Manville's liability insurance policies. Travelers had been Manville's primary liability insurer until 1976. In 2001, new plaintiffs sued Travelers, not for Manville's behavior but for the insurer's own alleged wrongdoing, accusing the insurer of conspiring with the Company to hide the harmful effects of asbestos from the public. One of the plaintiffs was Chubb, which faced its own claims as an asbestos industry liability insurer but was not a part of that 1986 agreement. Travelers settled with many of the new plaintiffs in 2004, paying US$500 million in exchange for an order from the bankruptcy court that the original 1986 agreement barred these future lawsuits. In 2008, the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court rejected that order, arguing the bankruptcy court did not have authority to bar future lawsuits unrelated to the insurance policies of the bankrupt Manville estate. In June 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the appeals court, ruling that asbestos claimants and others who were a part of the 1986 agreement had their chance to challenge that agreement long ago. However, the Appeals Court found that Chubb, as opposed to asbestos victims and other claimants, was not a part of the 1986 agreement and therefore had a right to challenge the bankruptcy court's ruling. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Filed in St. Clair Co.'s Docket --------------------------------------------------------------- Recent asbestos lawsuit filings sparked a revival of the little- known and infrequently St. Clair County, Ill., asbestos docket, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Swansea attorney Judy Cates, Esq., has teamed with the Chicago law firm of Cooney and Conway, in filing four mesothelioma- related asbestos suits on the same day in 2010, alleging claims against defendants like A.W. Chesterton Co., Bondex and John Crane, Inc. Other attorneys have made recent asbestos claims in St. Clair County, including Randy Gori, Esq., of Edwardsville, Ill. Mr. Gori, whose firm has brought asbestos cases into Madison County's asbestos court, has filed at least one asbestos case in St. Clair County in 2010. In Mr. Gori's newest St. Clair County case, clients Aubrey and Olive Roach claim Mr. Roach developed cancer from working with asbestos products during his time as an army mechanic in the 1940s. From 2004 to 2007 there were 61 asbestos cases filed in St. Clair County, compared to more than 1,200 in Madison County during the same period of time. Of the years analyzed in St. Clair County, 2006 had the most filings at 25. There were 22 cases filed in 2005. None were filed in 2008 and a single one was filed in 2007, according to records from the St. Clair County Circuit Clerk's Office. St. Clair County Circuit Judge Robert LeChien handled all of the asbestos cases from 2005 to 2009. The 2010 filings have so far been assigned to St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick Young. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Continue Goldenberg Trial Filed March 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- Frances Choat, acting as administrator of her husband, Marlin Choat's estate, filed a motion on March 3, 2010 to continue her April 5, 2010 trial against various law firms including the Hopkins Goldenberg law firm, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Madison County Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian is set to hear arguments on the motion on April 1, 2010 at 9 a.m. Mrs. Choat is suing the Hopkins Goldenberg law firm, John Hopkins, Esq., Mark Goldenberg, Esq., William Miller, Esq., Elizabeth Heller, Esq., and David Antognoli, Esq. The law firm of Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli P.C. is also named as a defendant in the suit. Mrs. Choat alleged that the attorneys failed to pursue a claim against the makers and distributors of asbestos products on her husband's behalf and then allowed the statute of limitations to lapse. The suit names several defendants who are also being sued by a different asbestos widow, Judy Buckles. Mrs. Buckles' suit is pending before Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder. Judge Crowder denied a move in the Buckles case to bring attorney John Simmons, Esq., and his law firm back into the case after he and the firm were granted summary judgment five years ago. In the Choat suit, Mrs. Choat alleges that after Mr. Choat died from complications of pulmonary fibrosis in 1999, she retained the Hopkins Goldenberg firm to pursue a lawsuit. She claims nothing happened and the claims have since lapsed. The suit seeks damages in excess of US$50,000. The defendants deny Mrs. Choat's charges in their answer. They claim that Mr. Choat's medical records did not show evidence of an asbestos connection to his work in the 1960s at Dow Chemical Company's Madison County plant as a finisher. They also argued that Mrs. Choat has not sought to off-set her damages by registering in Madison County's Asbestos Deferred Registry. John Hopkins moved to dismiss Mrs. Choat's claims in March 2007, citing a number of continued case management conferences at which the plaintiff did not appear as proof of lack of prosecution. Judge Matoesian denied the motion to dismiss. William Schooley, Esq., of Collinsville, Ill., represents Mrs. Choat. John Papa, Esq., of Granite City, Ill., and Daniel Konicek, Esq., of Chicago, represent the defendants. Mr. Papa and Mr. Konicek also represent several defendants in the Buckles suit. The Choat case is Case No. 05-L-718. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weirton Plant Owner Fined for Cleanup Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency have reached an agreement with the current owner and operator of the former Weirton Steel facility in Steubenville, Ohio, as well as the contractors the owner hired, regarding asbestos violations, according to an Ohio Attorney General press release dated March 23, 2010. The defendants, Arthur David Sugar Sr., John S. Evan and their respective companies, have agreed to a preliminary injunctive order requiring the asbestos waste at the facility to be cleaned in accordance with Ohio law by September 2010. Mr. Cordray said, "This agreement is a positive step forward in addressing the safety and health hazards posed to the local community by these violations." Mr. Sugar, of New Middletown, Ohio, currently owns the former site of the Weirton Steel facility, located at 200 Slack St. in Steubenville. In 2007, Mr. Sugar contracted with Mr. Evan, of Poland, Ohio, and his company for a large asbestos removal in connection with the demolition and renovation of buildings at the former steel mill site. Ohio EPA cited Mr. Sugar and Mr. Evan for violations of Ohio environmental law, including failing to follow the requirements for the removal and disposal of the asbestos- containing waste materials. A complaint was filed against Mr. Sugar and Mr. Evan in the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas on March 10, 2010. It also names as defendants the companies owned by Mr. Sugar, which include Dave Sugar Excavating, Honey Creek Contracting, Excavation Technologies and ADS Leasing Corp. Howland Company, owned by Mr. Evan, was also named as a defendant. A preliminary injunctive order was issued and filed by Judge Joseph J. Bruzzese Jr. on March 19, 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jackson to Pay $18.5T to Settle Safety Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney General Michael A. Delaney and Commissioner Thomas S. Burack, of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES), announce that the Grafton County Superior Court approved a settlement between the State and the defendant, Lee Jackson, to resolve violations of the State's asbestos management and control regulations, according to a New Hampshire AG press release dated March 16, 2010. The settlement imposes a US$18,500 penalty on Mr. Jackson, about US$5,000 of which will be paid to the State and US$13,500 of which will be permanently suspended if Mr. Jackson does not violate the settlement or State asbestos management and control regulations again within two years of the entry of the settlement agreement. In its lawsuit, the State alleged that Mr. Jackson violated the Asbestos Management and Control Act (RSA Chapter 141-E) and State asbestos regulations by demolishing buildings in Bath, Whitefield, and Hebron without conducting pre-demolition inspections for asbestos-containing materials (ACM), and without notifying the Department of Environmental Services at least 10 days prior to beginning the demolitions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sept. 11 Ground Zero Workers Reach $657.5M Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York completed a US$657.5 million settlement agreement on the 10,000 plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits against the City of New York for exposing first responders and aid workers to hazardous materials after the collapse of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001, Asbestos.Net reports. The settlement has been agreed to be made available to the 10,000 plus citizens of New York who claim to have suffered heath problems as a result of their efforts in the recovery and clean up of Ground Zero after the terrorist attacks there. The settlement amount will be divided between the plaintiffs based on numerous factors like proximity to the site, severity of illnesses diagnosed, time of diagnoses, pre-existing conditions, age of victim, and smoking history. Each individual, based on the merit and conditions of their health will receive anywhere from thousands of dollars to more than US$1 million. In the years since 9/11 thousands of New York firefighters, police officers, emergency workers, and construction employees have filed lawsuits against over 90 defendants, including the City of New York, and the private corporations hired to remove debris from Ground Zero. The plaintiffs claim that as a result of improper safety practices, and lack of safety equipment their health condition has suffered. The conditions they are suffering from are many, and range from asthma and other respiratory diseases to aggressive rare cancers such as lung, and esophageal. Many people are still unaware of the hazardous materials that have been found at Ground Zero as a result of the damage done by the Twin Towers collapse. Asbestos and other harmful construction materials were used in the building's construction during the 1970s, and when the towers collapsed all those materials were pulverized into airborne microbes; which were breathed in by every individual there for weeks and months. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Actions on Jackson Exposure Filed on March 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two lawsuits filed on March 18, 2010 allege that workers and visitors have been exposed to airborne asbestos at the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas City, Mo., for more than 20 years, KansasCity.com reports. The two suits filed in Jackson County Circuit Court allege that since at least 1983, dust containing asbestos fibers has been released into the air inside the building at 415 E. 12th St. Plaintiffs' attorney, Louis Accurso, Esq., said, "There have been significant accumulations of asbestos dust in and around the heating and air-conditioning systems at the courthouse for a number of years." Mr. Accurso is representing longtime courthouse employee Nancy R. Lopez, who in April 2009 was diagnosed with a form of cancer that is caused by asbestos exposure, according to the suit. The second suit seeks class-action status on behalf of courthouse visitors, employees and members of their families who may have been exposed to asbestos from 1983 to the present. Mr. Accurso and Edward Robertson Jr., Esq., represent the plaintiffs in the class action. Besides Jackson County, the suits were filed against Kansas City-based U.S. Engineering Co. According to the suits, U.S. Engineering has done renovation, demolition and maintenance projects at the courthouse for more than 30 years. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CMS Energy Cites $38Mil Liability for Abatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- CMS Energy Corporation's asset retirement obligation liability for asbestos abatement amounted to US$38 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$36 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in Jackson, Mich., CMS Energy Corporation's utility, Consumers Energy, has a generating capacity of 9,600 MW (primarily fossil-fueled) and distributes electricity and natural gas to about 3.5 million customers in Michigan. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Has $229.03M A&E Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Markel Corporation's net reserves for asbestos and environmental losses and loss adjustment expenses amounted to US$229,030,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$238,271,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's gross reserves for A&E losses and LAE amounted to US$382,108,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$393,173,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's exposure to A&E claims results from policies written by acquired insurance operations before their acquisitions by the Company. Its exposure to A&E claims originated from umbrella, excess and commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies and assumed reinsurance contracts that were written on an occurrence basis from the 1970s to mid-1980s. Exposure also originated from claims-made policies that were designed to cover environmental risks provided that all other terms and conditions of the policy were met. A&E claims include property damage and clean-up costs related to pollution, as well as personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to hazardous materials. After 1986, the Company began underwriting CGL coverage with pollution exclusions, and in some lines of business the Company began using a claims-made form. These changes significantly reduced the Company's exposure to future A&E claims on post-1986 business. Net reserves for reported claims and net incurred but not reported reserves for A&E exposures were US$133.8 million at Dec. 31, 2009 and US$95.2 million at Dec. 31, 2008. Inception-to-date net paid losses and loss adjustment expenses for A&E related exposures totaled US$343.1 million at Dec. 31, 2009, which includes US$63.9 million of litigation-related expense. Headquartered in Glen Allen, Va., Markel Corporation markets and underwrites specialty insurance products and programs to various niche markets. The Company competes in three segments of the specialty insurance marketplace: the Excess and Surplus Lines, the Specialty Admitted and the London markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. Gorman-Rupp, 2 Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Gorman-Rupp Company and two of its subsidiaries remain drawn into asbestos-related this mass-scaled litigation, typically as one of hundreds of co-defendants in a particular proceeding. For more than 10 years, numerous business entities in the pump and fluid-handling industries, as well as a multitude of companies in many other industries, have been targeted in a series of lawsuits in several jurisdictions by various individuals seeking redress to claimed injury as a result of the entities' alleged use of asbestos in their products. The vast majority of these cases are against Patterson Pump Company. The allegations in the lawsuits involving the Company and its subsidiaries are vague, general and speculative, and most cases have not advanced beyond the early stage of discovery. In certain situations, the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the Company and its subsidiaries from some of the lawsuits after the plaintiffs have acknowledged that there is no basis for their claims. In other situations, the Company and its subsidiaries have been dismissed from some of the lawsuits as a result of court rulings in favor of motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. In 32 cases, the Company and its subsidiaries have entered into nominal economic settlements recommended and paid for by insurers, coupled with dismissal of the lawsuits. Insurers of the Company have engaged legal counsel to represent the Company and its subsidiaries and to protect their interests. Headquartered in Mansfield, Ohio, The Gorman-Rupp Company designs, manufactures and sells pumps and related equipment (pump and motor controls) for use in water, wastewater, construction, industrial, petroleum, original equipment, agriculture, fire protection, heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC), military and other liquid-handling applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stehman Case v. Ballantyne Settled on Dec. 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ballantyne Strong, Inc., during December 2009, settled an asbestos case entitled Larry C. Stehman and Leila Stehman v. Asbestos Corporation, Limited and Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. individually and as successor in interest to Strong International, Strong Electric Corporation and Century Projector Corporation, et al. The case was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The settlement, including legal fees resulted in charges of US$400,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 23, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Omaha, Nebr., Ballantyne Strong, Inc. is a manufacturer, distributor and service provider to the theatre exhibition industry on a worldwide basis. The Company also designs, develops, manufactures and distributes lighting systems to the worldwide entertainment lighting industry. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Alcatel-Lucent --------------------------------------------------------------- Alcatel-Lucent is a defendant in lawsuits, including commercial disputes, claims regarding intellectual property, customer financing, product discontinuance, asbestos claims, labor, employment and benefit claims and others. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on March 23, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Paris, Alcatel-Lucent provides products, solutions, and transformation services offerings that enable service providers, enterprises, governments and strategic industries (such as transportation or energy) worldwide, to deliver voice, data and video communication services to end- users. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 11 Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co., is a defendant together with non-affiliated parties, in 11 asbestos claims (seven of which include the Company as a defendant), according to the Company's annual report filed on March 19, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The claims allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago. The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance carriers including both primary and excess/umbrella liability carriers that have provided liability coverage to the Company, including potential coverage for alleged injuries relating to asbestos exposure. Several of these insurance carriers are providing a defense to Premix and the Company under a reservation of rights in all of these asbestos cases. Certain of these underlying insurance carriers have denied coverage to Premix and the Company on the basis that certain exclusions preclude coverage and/or that their policies have been exhausted. In June 2009, one such carrier filed suit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court against Premix and the Company, wherein the carrier seeks a declaration from the Court that its insurance policies do not provide coverage for the asbestos claims against Premix and the Company. The carrier also asserts a claim for reimbursement of defense costs and indemnity payments that it voluntarily made on the Company's behalf in prior asbestos claims. Premix and the Company have filed a counter claim against the carrier for breach of contract, and asserted claims for damages and attorneys' fees as a result of the carrier's unlawful denial of coverage. Nevertheless, until this suit has been resolved, and as a result of the positions taken by certain other carriers, the "underlying coverage layer" at this time has been exhausted, and the "umbrella/excess carrier group" has assumed the defense and indemnity of the pending asbestos claims under a reservation of rights. Notwithstanding the positions asserted by these few carriers and pending declaratory judgment action, the Company said it believes, when considering that the Company and Premix have substantial umbrella/excess coverage for these claims, that Premix and the Company have more than adequate insurance coverage for these asbestos claims and such policies are not subject to self-insured retentions. Headquartered in Pompano Beach, Fla., Imperial Industries, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of building materials to building materials dealers and others located primarily in Florida, and to a lesser extent, other states in the Southeastern United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Cites $122MM for Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation's gross asbestos-related claim and loss adjustment expense reserves amounted to US$122 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$133.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's net asbestos-related claim and LAE reserves amounted to US$103.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$108.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. Headquartered in Chicago, Old Republic International Corporation is engaged in the single business of insurance underwriting. It conducts its operations through a number of regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three major segments, namely, its General (property and liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty, and Title Insurance Groups. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Has $5.24M 2009 Reorganization Charge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corporation's asbestos-related reorganization charges were US$5,244,000 during the three months and year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on March 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges were US$11,491,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. 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 a wide variety of designs and colors, and are used in remodeling, manufactured housing, new construction and commercial applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Met-Pro Corp. Surged to 106 at Jan. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A total of 106 asbestos cases were pending against Met-Pro Corporation as of Jan. 31, 2010, compared with 53 pending cases as of Jan. 31, 2009. Most of the cases as of Jan. 31, 2010 were pending in New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi. A total of 97 asbestos cases were pending against the Company as of Oct. 31, 2009, compared with 55 cases pending as of Jan. 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 11, 2009) Beginning in 2002, the Company began to be named in asbestos- related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. The sum total of all payments through Jan. 31, 2010 to settle cases involving asbestos-related claims was US$540,000, all of which has been paid by the Company's insurers including legal expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of about US$32,000. During the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2010, about 77 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 22 cases and settled two cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. Headquartered in Harleysville, Pa., Met-Pro Corporation manufactures and sells product recovery and pollution control equipment for purification of air and liquids, fluid handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, and filtration and purification products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing, Anchor Party to Injury Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Company, are among a large number of defendants in actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. Among the many products at issue in these actions are industrial sealing products, including gaskets and packing products. The damages claimed vary from action to action, and in some cases plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages. To date, neither Garlock nor Anchor has been required to pay any punitive damage awards, although there can be no assurance that they will not be required to do so in the future. Liability for compensatory damages has historically been allocated among responsible defendants. Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed more than 900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments, settlements and dismissals) and, together with their insurers, have paid over US$1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and over US$400 million in fees and expenses. Anchor is an inactive and insolvent indirect subsidiary of Coltec Industries Inc. There is no remaining insurance coverage available to Anchor. Anchor has no remaining assets and has not committed to settle any actions since 1998. As cases reach the trial stage, Anchor is typically dismissed without payment. 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: EnPro Ind. Faces 97,400 Open Actions at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Of the 97,400 open asbestos-related cases filed against EnPro Industries, Inc. at Dec. 31, 2009, the Company is aware of about 5,200 that involve claimants alleging mesothelioma, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 3, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company faced about 97,400 open asbestos cases, of which it was aware of about 5,300 that involve claimants alleging mesothelioma. The number of new actions filed against the Company's subsidiaries in 2009 (4,400) was about 20 percent lower than the number filed in 2008 (5,500) and 2007 (5,200). The number filed against the subsidiaries in each of the three years was much lower than the number filed in the peak filing year, 2003, when 44,700 new claims were filed. 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: 16 Garlock Sealing Trials Commenced During 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, in 2009, began 16 asbestos-related trials involving 18 plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report filed on March 3, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Garlock prevailed in six mesothelioma trials, receiving defense verdicts in its favor from three juries, in South Carolina, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, dismissals in its favor from judges in California and Pennsylvania trials, and a US$0 share (after set- offs) of a US$700,000 jury verdict in a second South Carolina mesothelioma case. Adverse verdicts were rendered against Garlock in two mesothelioma cases: a second Kentucky case, where the jury awarded the plaintiff US$2.1 million and Garlock's share was US$525,000; and a New York City case, where the jury awarded the plaintiff US$8 million and Garlock's apportioned two percent share was US$160,000. Garlock has since settled the New York case, and the Kentucky verdict has been appealed. The remaining eight lawsuits in which Garlock began trial involved 10 plaintiffs in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts and Florida. All of them settled during trial before the juries reached a verdict. One of the settlements resolved a Philadelphia trial involving two mesothelioma plaintiffs. The lawsuit was tried under Philadelphia's "reverse bifurcation" process. In reverse bifurcation, the jury assesses damages in the first phase and then considers liability in a second phase. In phase 1, the Philadelphia jury determined that each plaintiff had suffered US$8.5 million in damages. During phase 2, before the jury determined the liability of specific defendants and apportioned the liability among them, Garlock resolved both cases as part of a settlement of several hundred claims. 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: EnPro Has 5 Pending Garlock Appeals at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc. says that, at Dec. 31, 2009, five Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC asbestos appeals were pending from adverse verdicts totaling US$2.7 million, up from US$2.2 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$1.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Garlock has historically enjoyed success in a majority of its appeals. The Company said it believes that Garlock will continue to be successful in the appellate process. In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$800,000 verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2004, granting a new trial. In some cases, appeals require the provision of security in the form of appeal bonds, potentially in amounts greater than the verdicts. The Company is required to provide cash collateral or letters of credit to secure the full amount of the bonds, which can restrict the use of a significant amount of the Company's cash for the periods of such appeals. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had about US$3.3 million of appeal bonds secured by letters of credit rather than cash collateral. This amount securing appeal bonds compares to US$1.7 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$1.1 million at Dec. 31, 2007. 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: EnPro Cites $79M New Settlement Payments in '09 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc. says that new asbestos-related settlement payments continued to decline in 2007 through 2009, totaling US$88 million in 2007, US$83 million in 2008 and US$79 million in 2009. The Company's new asbestos-related settlement commitments in the first nine months of 2009 were US$67.2 million, up from US$53.9 million in the first nine months of 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2009) Garlock settles and disposes of actions on a regular basis. Garlock's historical settlement strategy was to settle only cases in advanced stages of litigation. In 1999 and 2000, however, Garlock employed a more aggressive settlement strategy. The purpose of this strategy was to achieve a permanent reduction in the number of overall asbestos claims through the settlement of a large number of claims, including some early-stage claims and some claims not yet filed as lawsuits. Due to this short-term aggressive settlement strategy and a significant overall increase in claims filings, the settlement amounts paid in those years and several subsequent years were greater than the amounts paid in any year prior to 1999. In 2001, Garlock resumed its historical settlement strategy and focused on reducing settlement payments to match insurance recoveries. As a result, Garlock reduced new settlement payments from US$143 million in 2001 to US$120 million in 2002 and US$107 million in 2003. 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: Garlock Records $238.6M for Coverage at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc. says that, at Dec. 31, 2009, subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC had available US$238.6 million of asbestos insurance and trust coverage that the Company believes will be available to cover current and future asbestos claims and certain expense payments. In addition, the Company said it believes that Garlock may also recover some additional insurance from insolvent carriers over time. Garlock collected about US$1 million in 2009, US$100,000 in 2008 and US$1 million in 2007 from insolvent carriers. Of the US$238.6 million of collectible insurance and trust assets, the Company considers US$235.2 million (99 percent) to be of high quality because (a) the insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better, or (b) in the form of cash or liquid investments held in insurance trusts resulting from commutation agreements. The Company considers US$3.4 million (one percent) to be of moderate quality because the insurance policies are written with various London market carriers. Of the US$238.6 million, about US$183.3 million is allocated to claims that have been paid by Garlock and submitted to its insurance companies for reimbursement and the remainder is allocated to pending and estimated future claims as described later in this section. Arrangements with Garlock's insurance carriers limit the amount of insurance proceeds that Garlock is entitled to receive in any one year. Based on these arrangements, which include settlement agreements in place with most of the carriers involved, the Company anticipates that Garlock's remaining solvent insurance will be collected during the period 2010 through 2018 in about the following annual amounts: 2010 - US$67 million; 2011 - US$39 million; 2012 - US$30 million; 2013 - US$24 million; 2014 through 2016 - US$20 million per year; and 2017 and 2018 - US$12 million per year. The Company collected about US$70 million of insurance in 2009. 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: EnPro Completes Sale of Quincy Unit on March 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc., on March 1, 2010, completed the previously announced sale of its Quincy Compressor business unit, other than the equity interests in Kunshan Q-Tech Air Systems Technologies Ltd., its operation in China (Q-Tech), under aa Purchase Agreement dated as of Dec. 18, 2009 with Fulcrum Acquisition LLC and Atlas Copco (China) Investment Company Ltd., subsidiaries of Atlas Copco AB (Buyers). Under the Purchase Agreement, the Company retained, and has agreed to indemnify the Buyers from, certain liabilities, including liabilities related to asbestos claims and specified environmental liabilities, union pension and existing retiree benefit liabilities, and governmental actions and specified legal proceedings. Completion of the sale to the Buyers of 100 percent of the equity interests in Q-Tech is pending receipt of necessary regulatory authorizations in China. The aggregate base purchase price for the assets sold on March 1, 2010 was about US$184.2 million in cash and the assumption of certain liabilities of the Quincy Compressor business unit, and an additional about US$5.8 million is payable in cash upon the closing of the sale of Q-Tech (or at Dec. 18, 2010 if the sale of Q-Tech is not completed by that date). 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: 2 Firms Fined $64.2T for Boston Cleanup Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has penalized two local companies a total of US$64,200 for asbestos removal and disposal violations at a South Boston site, according to a MassDEP press release dated March 24, 2010. MassDEP assessed Trinity Green Development, LLC of Milton a US$32,100 fine as a result of numerous asbestos removal and disposal violations found during an inspection at 518 East Sixth Street, South Boston. Trinity owned this former elementary school building, which was being redeveloped into residential units in 2008. MassDEP also issued a separate US$32,100 penalty to Cleanouts Inc., the trash removal company that was found to be responsible for the asbestos violations at the South Boston redevelopment project. Cleanouts Inc., based in South Boston, was issued a unilateral penalty after repeated attempts to negotiate a consent order with the company failed. As a result of a complaint, MassDEP inspected the property on Jan. 18, 2008, and found an improper demolition operation had commenced with dry, loose asbestos-containing debris scattered throughout the site. The required notification to MassDEP had not been submitted for this asbestos removal, the work area had not been sealed and the asbestos-containing material was improperly disposed. Richard Chalpin, director of MassDEP's Northeast Regional Office in Wilmington, Mass., said, "Asbestos needs to be removed and disposed properly, not haphazardly, because rip-skip-dump tactics like this can cause fibers to become airborne and present a clear health hazard if inhaled." Trinity has agreed to pay US$15,000 of the penalty and MassDEP has agreed to suspend the remaining US$17,100 provided there are no additional violations for a period of one year. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Filed v. Woodside in Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- Australian Customs is checking union claims that Woodside Petroleum Ltd. has illegally tried to import asbestos to Western Australia for the second time in three weeks, WA News reports. Australian Manufacturing Workers Union state secretary Steve McCartney said Australian Customs officers on March 24, 201 boarded a ship off Karratha carrying foreign-made asbestos gaskets bound for Woodside's Pluto liquefied natural gas project. The claim follows another incident earlier in March 2010 where a New Zealand vessel attempted to import asbestos contained in packaging material for the project. Mr. McCartney said Woodside had held a "crisis meeting" with the contractor responsible for importing the equipment, Foster Wheeler/Worley. He has demanded that the ship be immediately turned around from Australian waters. Mr. McCartney said workers at Karratha's "moth wharf" had noticed the asbestos gaskets on the ship, and called the union which demanded Woodside test the material. He said the Company had engaged specialist environmental cleaners to decontaminate the ship. On March 25, 2010, Maritime Union of Australia state secretary Chris Cain raised the specter of industrial action if Woodside failed to curb the attempted asbestos importation. ********* 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, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy 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 * * *