/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100416.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, April 16, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 74
Headlines
ATRICURE INC: Continues to Defend "Levine" Suit in New York
ATRICURE INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Ohio
ATRINSIC INC: Settlement in "Allen" Suit Gets Final Approval
AUTO REPAIR: Accused in Wash. of Deceptive Business Practices
BEAR LAKE: Class Action Plaintiffs Ink Settlement with Mr. Boily
BIG LOTS: Settles Louisiana Complaint for $4 Million
BIG LOTS: Defends FLSA Violations Suit in New York
BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Certification Denial
BLUE CROSS: E.D. Mich. Approves Autism Class Action Settlement
BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit
H&R BLOCK: Employees Accused of Stealing Customers' Tax Refunds
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ERISA Complaint Filed in D. Md.
IOVATE HEALTH: Removes Hydroxycut Suit to N.D. Calif.
JONES SODA: Being Sold for Unfair Price, Wash. Suit Claims
L.A. SPECIALTY: Accused of Failing to Provide Meal Periods
LOBLAW: Sued, with Siena, After Listeria-Related Meat Recall
LODGIAN INC: Negotiates Dismissal of Merger-Related Ga. Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Policy Owner Wants Fair Share of Dividends
MONSTER CABLE: Deceptive Claims About HDMI Cable Product Alleged
NATIONAL STORES: Accused of Labor Code Violations
NEW YORK: Court Okays Staten Island Ferry Case Contingency Fee
NOBELTEL LLC: Sued for Providing Fewer Minutes than Advertised
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss New York Suit Pending
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle "Jones" Suit for $925,000
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Defends Shareholder Suit in Massachusetts
RANCHO VISTA: Homeowner Wants Compensation for House's Defects
RELIABLE BUILDING: Sued for Not Paying for All Hours Worked
ROSS STORES: Lawsuits Over Wage and Hour Claims Remain Pending
SERVICEMASTER CO: Plaintiffs in Four Suits Dismiss Suits
SERVICEMASTER CO: Settlement in "Squires" Gets Preliminary Nod
SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Defends Private Plaintiffs' Suit in N.Y.
SUPER REMATE: Sued for Not Paying All Wages Due
TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Subrogation Action From Insurance Firms
UHS OF DELAWARE: Sued for Non-Payment of Agreed Wages
WEDBUSH MORGAN: Sued for Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Northern Lights Fined $70T for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS ALERT: Claim v. C&D Disposal Filed April 9 in Jefferson
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 800 Exposure Claims Remaining v. AbitibiBowater
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at Feb. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Continuing v. TOTAL S.A.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Corporation Subject to Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PMA Capital Has $26MM Gross Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,168 Injury Claims Pending v. Ampco at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Howden's Lawsuit v. Ampco Ongoing in Pa. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Has $147MM Long-Term Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Gross A&E Reserve at $638.7M at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Cites $11.3M Net A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance Has $4.49MM for Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Still Has $277,000 Gradall Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Involved in Cases From Cryovac Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Still Facing Thundersky Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPERS Action v. Sealed Air Settled in Dec. 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Has $53MM A&E Liability at Jan. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers' A&E Liability at $2.4M at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has $17.7MM Dec. 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,193 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Potentially Liable for Miller
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10,329 Actions Pending v. RPM Units at Feb. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Final Briefs in Bondex Lawsuit Due on April 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Records $357.9M Feb. 28 Long-Term Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Progress in Scott v. Chase Since Feb. 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jansen Action v. Chase Still in Discovery Phase
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DryShips Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four Hilco Exposure Claims Remain After Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Facing Three Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Kaanapali, D/C
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10M-$20M Coverage for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hubbard Claim v. 74 Companies Filed on March 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Envt'l. Services to Abate Hazard in Nebr. Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Local Indicted on False Inspection Reports
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Keeling Action v. 25 Firms Filed in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Messer Case v. 26 Firms Filed March 18 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gill Action Filed March 18 v. 39 Firms in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belmont Local Fined $4.4T for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duffy Action v. Ill. Railroad Filed on March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 240 Main Street to Pay $50T for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Records $48.5Mil Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Cites $667.63Mil Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crum & Forster Records $356.3M Net Losses, ALAE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United America Reserves $51.17M for Losses, LAE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ING Groep Records EUR42M Balance for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Has $25Mil Non-Current Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Expends $300,000 for Cleanup at Feb. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aranda Claim v. 12 Firms Filed April 6 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardick Widow Wins $2.99M in Compensation Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walker Case v. 61 Firms Filed March 18 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDade Claim Filed v. 58 Firms in Kanawha Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Jury Awards $30M in Three Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Wolgamott's Bid in Metalclad Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Ruling in Schaffner's Lawsuit
*********
ATRICURE INC: Continues to Defend "Levine" Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
AtriCure, Inc., continues to defend a purported securities class
action captioned Levine v. AtriCure, Inc., Case No. 06 CV 14324,
according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.
The company and certain of its current and former officers were
named as defendants in a purported securities class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock during the period from the company's initial public
offering in August 2005 through Feb. 16, 2006.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. This motion was denied in September
2007, and a motion for reconsideration of that denial was denied
in January 2009.
AtriCure, Inc. -- http://www.atricure.com/-- is a medical device
company that develops, manufactures and sells cardiac surgical
ablation systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in
cardiac, or heart, tissue. The company's primary product line,
which accounts for a majority of its revenues, is the AtriCure
Isolator system. AtriCure's Isolator system consists primarily
of a compact power generator known as an ablation and sensing
unit (ASU), a switchbox unit (ASB), which allows physicians to
toggle between multiple products and multiple configurations of
its Isolator clamps, including its Isolator Synergy clamps.
AtriCure also sells a multifunctional bipolar pen, or
multifunctional pen, which is often used by physicians in
combination with its Isolator system to ablate cardiac tissue and
for temporary pacing, sensing, stimulating and recording during
the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmias. In 2008, the company
received FDA approval for its EXCLUDE clinical trial.
ATRICURE INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
AtriCure, Inc., continues to defend a putative class action
lawsuit entitled In re AtriCure, Inc. Securities Litigation,
according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.
On Dec. 12, 2008, the company and certain of its current
executive officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division.
The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seek unspecified damages against AtriCure, Inc.
and certain of its current executive officers.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that failed to
disclose that the company improperly promoted certain products to
physicians and caused the filing of false claims for
reimbursement. The class period alleged ran from May 10, 2007
through Oct. 31, 2008.
In July 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss and, in
September 2009, the plaintiffs filed their memorandum in
opposition to the motion to dismiss to which the company
responded on Nov. 9, 2009.
On March 29, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss and, in particular, dismissed the
claim that the company caused the filing of false claims for
reimbursement.
AtriCure, Inc. -- http://www.atricure.com/-- is a medical device
company that develops, manufactures and sells cardiac surgical
ablation systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in
cardiac, or heart, tissue. The company's primary product line,
which accounts for a majority of its revenues, is the AtriCure
Isolator system. AtriCure's Isolator system consists primarily
of a compact power generator known as an ablation and sensing
unit (ASU), a switchbox unit (ASB), which allows physicians to
toggle between multiple products and multiple configurations of
its Isolator clamps, including its Isolator Synergy clamps.
AtriCure also sells a multifunctional bipolar pen, or
multifunctional pen, which is often used by physicians in
combination with its Isolator system to ablate cardiac tissue and
for temporary pacing, sensing, stimulating and recording during
the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmias. In 2008, the company
received FDA approval for its EXCLUDE clinical trial.
ATRINSIC INC: Settlement in "Allen" Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the matter Allen v. Atrinsic, Inc. f/k/a New
Motion, Inc., has received final approval from the court,
according to Atrinsic, Inc.'s March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.
On March 10, 2010, and subsequent to its fiscal year-end,
Atrinsic received final approval of its settlement to its Class
Action proceeding in the State of California on Allen v.
Atrinsic, Inc. f/k/a New Motion, Inc., pending in Los Angeles
County Superior Court.
The settlement covers all of the company's mobile products, web
sites and advertizing practices through December 2009.
All costs of the settlement and defense were accrued for in 2008.
Atrinsic, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/-- formerly known as
New Motion, Inc., is a digital advertising and marketing services
company in the United States. Atrinsic is organized as a single
segment with two principal offerings: Transactional services and
Subscription services.
AUTO REPAIR: Accused in Wash. of Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Auto Repair Warranty sold
worthless service contracts for used cars at $1,000 a pop, a
class claims in Seattle Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Allen, et al. v. Auto Repair Warranty,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00601 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/12/Phones.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William R. Sherman, Esq.
SHERMAN & LEARY, PLLC
1111 Third Ave., Suite 2230
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206-552-9607
- and -
Daniel Johnson, Esq.
Roger Townsend, Esq.
BRESKIN, JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2230
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206-652-8660
BEAR LAKE: Class Action Plaintiffs Ink Settlement with Mr. Boily
----------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Apr. 8, 2010, Bear
Lake Gold Ltd. reached an agreement in principle to settle the
class action commenced in Ontario against it, its directors and
certain of its current and former officers.
This week, Bear Lake Gold Ltd. confirmed that an agreement in
principle has also been reached with Mr. Bernard Boily, the
Company's former Vice President Exploration.
The agreement in principle remains subject to final settlement
documentation and court approval. The proposed settlement does
not and will not constitute any admission of liability by the
Company or its officers, directors or employees.
Earlier coverage of the litigation appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Aug. 27 and 31, 2009.
BIG LOTS: Settles Louisiana Complaint for $4 Million
----------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., has settled the complaint pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for $4
million, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 30, 2010.
In November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.
The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.
On July 5, 2005, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
conditionally certifying a class of all then-current and former
assistant store managers who have worked for the company since
Nov. 23, 2001.
As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to
approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to
the Louisiana matter.
Approximately 1,100 individuals opted to join the Louisiana
matter.
The company filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion
was denied on Aug. 24, 2007.
The trial began on May 7, 2008 and concluded on May 15, 2008.
On June 20, 2008, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order
decertifying the action and dismissed, without prejudice, the
claims of the opt-in plaintiffs.
After this ruling, four plaintiffs remained before the District
Court in Louisiana.
On Jan. 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their
respective cases before the District Court in Louisiana.
Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January
2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate in
the January 2009 action) were dismissed with prejudice.
On April 2, 2009, the District Court in Louisiana awarded the two
remaining plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately
$100,000 plus attorneys' fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009,
were determined to be $400,000.
The company appealed both of these decisions.
Subsequent to the District Court in Louisiana's April 2, 2009
decision, approximately 172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed
individual actions in the District Court in Louisiana.
On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a writ of mandamus
challenging the District Court in Louisiana's jurisdiction to
hear these cases.
This writ was denied on Oct. 20, 2009.
Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January
2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate
On Jan. 12, 2010, the Louisiana matter was settled for $4.0
million.
Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.
BIG LOTS: Defends FLSA Violations Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., continues to defend a civil collective action
complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 30, 2010.
In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, alleging that the company violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees.
In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New
York law relating to those assistant store managers working in
the State of New York.
The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.
On Jan. 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and Order rendered
limiting this action to current and former assistant store
managers working in our New York stores.
Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.
BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Certification Denial
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Big Lots, Inc., are appealing the
ruling of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
denying class certification in the case, according to the
company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
30, 2010.
In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the
company alleging that the company violated certain California
wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as
exempt employees.
The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for
alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid
upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks,
missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused
vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On Oct. 29, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' class
certification motion, with prejudice.
On Jan. 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.
Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national
broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising
categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and
others.
BLUE CROSS: E.D. Mich. Approves Autism Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The federal court in Detroit approved a landmark class action
settlement this week which mandates that Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Michigan shall provide insurance coverage for children with
autism for the six year period at issue in the lawsuit. The
settlement calls for Blue Cross to pay for treatment known as
Applied Behavioral Analysis, or "ABA," received by autistic
children at the Beaumont "GIFT" program between March 2003 and
June 2009. Under the terms of the class action settlement, Blue
Cross will fully reimburse insured families for this ABA care
whether or not they made a claim with Blue Cross prior to the
settlement. The court ordered Blue Cross to make these payments
within the next two weeks.
The attorneys for the families in Johns v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Michigan, Case No. 08-cv-12272 (E.D. Mich.), are:
Gerard Mantese, Esq.
MANTESE AND ROSSMAN, P.C.
1361 E. Big Beaver Road
Troy, Michigan 48083
Telephone: 248-457-9200
- and -
John J. Conway, Esq.
JOHN J. CONWAY, P.C.
645 Griswold St, Ste 3600
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: 313-961-6525
Mr. Mantese stated: "This is a landmark settlement in which Blue
Cross acknowledged the efficacy of applied behavioral analysis.
Mr. Conway and I are pleased that we were able to obtain this
victory for children with autism."
News about the settlement appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on June 23, 2009.
BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P.'s motion to dismiss an amended
complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, according to the company's March
30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
Between July 21, 2008 and Sept. 4, 2008, these class action
complaints were filed:
1. Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil
Action No. 08-CV-6477, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (filed July 21, 2008).
The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on
Aug. 26, 2008;
2. Carson v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
Action No. 08-cv-425, in the Northern District of
Oklahoma (filed July 22, 2008);
3. Charles D. Maurer SIMP Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o
Charles D. Maurer v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.
et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-6598, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York
(filed July 25, 2008);
4. Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
Civil Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 8,
2008);
5. Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
Civil Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 25,
2008); and
6. William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.
et al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York
(filed Sept. 4, 2008).
Pursuant to a motion filed with the MDL Panel, the Maurer case
has been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma and
consolidated with the Carson case. The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman
cases have also been transferred to the Northern District of
Oklahoma.
A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held
in the Carson case on Oct. 17, 2008. At that hearing, the court
granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases for
pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now
pending as In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-425-GKF-PJC.
The court entered an order on Oct. 27, 2008, granting the motion
of Harvest Fund Advisors LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in
the consolidated litigation. On Jan. 23, 2009, the court entered
a Scheduling Order providing, among other things, that the lead
plaintiff may file a consolidated amended complaint within 70
days of the date of the order, and that defendants may answer or
otherwise respond within 60 days of the date of the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint.
On Jan. 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to modify the
stay of discovery provided for under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. The court granted Plaintiff's motion, and
the company and certain other defendants filed a Petition for
Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that was
denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009.
The lead plaintiff obtained an extension to file its consolidated
amended complaint until May 4, 2009; defendants have 60 days from
that date to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on May
4, 2009. In that complaint, filed as a putative class action on
behalf of all purchasers of our units from July 17, 2007 to July
17, 2008, lead plaintiff asserts claims under the federal
securities laws against the company, its General Partner, certain
of its current and former officers and directors, certain
underwriters in the company's initial and secondary public
offerings, and certain entities who were investors in SemCorp and
their individual representatives who served on SemCorp's
management committee.
Among other allegations, the amended complaint alleges that the
company's financial condition throughout the class period was
dependent upon speculative commodities trading by SemCorp and its
Chief Executive Officer, Thomas L. Kivisto, and that defendants
negligently and intentionally failed to disclose this speculative
trading in our public filings during the class period. The
amended complaint further alleges there were other material
omissions and misrepresentations contained in the company's
filings during the class period. The amended complaint alleges
claims for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 for damages and rescission with respect to
all persons who purchased our units in the initial and secondary
offerings, and also asserts claims under section 10b, Rule 10b-5,
and section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, compensatory and rescissory
damages for class members, pre-judgment interest, costs of court,
and attorneys' fees.
On July 22, 2009, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on Sept. 1, 2009.
On Oct. 8, 2009, the defendants filed a reply in support of their
motion to dismiss. The lead plaintiff filed a supplemental
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on Oct. 29, 2009.
The defendants' motion to dismiss is currently pending before the
court.
Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P., formerly SemGroup Energy
Partners, L.P., -- http://www.bkep.com/-- owns, operates and
develops a portfolio of midstream energy assets. The company
provides integrated terminalling, storage, processing, gathering
and transportation services for companies engaged in the
production, distribution and marketing of crude oil and liquid
asphalt cement. It manages its operations through three
operating segments: crude oil terminalling and storage services,
crude oil gathering and transportation services and asphalt
services. The company owns and operates two pipeline systems,
the Mid-Continent system and the Longview system, that gather
crude oil purchased by the Private Company and its other
customers and transports it to refiners, to common carrier
pipelines for ultimate delivery to refiners or to terminalling
and storage facilities owned by the company and others.
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a consolidated
suit against Centerline Holding Company is pending before the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's March
31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
In 2008, the company and its trustees were named as defendants in
fourteen shareholder putative class and/or derivative actions
arising out of its announcements in late 2007 that (i) the
company had taken steps to transition its business to more of a
fund manager and in connection with such action intended to
reduce the dividend payable on the company's common shares from
that which had been paid in prior years and (ii) the company had
committed to sell and then sold 11.0% Cumulative Convertible
Preferred Shares to an affiliate of TRCLP.
Six of these cases are putative class actions pending in federal
court in New York that assert claims under the federal securities
laws. The other eight cases are primarily derivative actions,
although some purport also to assert class claims, arising under
state law.
On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities putative
class actions was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Thereafter, five other, essentially
duplicative putative class actions were also filed in the same
court. The complaint in each case asserted that the company and
other defendants allegedly violated federal securities law by
failing to disclose in a timely fashion its December 2007
transaction with Freddie Mac.
On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group,
which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for
these cases. Pursuant to the Court's stipulation and order dated
March 3, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
on July 7, 2008 in this action, In re Centerline Holding Company
Securities Litigation, No. 08 CV 00505.
The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the company's announcement of
the Freddie Mac transaction, changes to the company's business
model, and the reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock
of Centerline Holding Company during the period March 12, 2007
through Dec. 28, 2007.
The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Oct. 27, 2008 and the motion was
granted by U.S District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin on Jan. 12,
2009. Judge Scheindlin granted the plaintiff leave to replead,
and the plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on
March 13, 2009.
On April 30, 2009, the Defendants in this case filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. The lead Plaintiff
filed his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 12,
2009 and the Defendants filed their reply to the opposition
motion filed by the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2009.
On Aug. 4, 2009 the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and
the case was dismissed without leave for the plaintiff to
replead. On Sept. 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the
District Court's decision with the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants have filed
briefs in this appeal and are awaiting a schedule for oral
argument.
Centerline Holding Company -- http://www.centerline.com/--
provides real estate financial and asset management services,
including institutional debt and equity fund management, mortgage
banking, and primary and special loan servicing. As of Dec. 31,
2008, it had over $14 billion of assets under management. It has
four business groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products. Its Corporate
group, consisting of Finance and Accounting, Legal, Corporate
Communications, Operations and Risk Management departments,
supports these business groups. The Affordable Housing and
Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of
funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity
investments. The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products for its
Affordable Housing group and third-parties. The Portfolio
Management group provides primary and special loan servicing for
commercial real estate.
H&R BLOCK: Employees Accused of Stealing Customers' Tax Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action accuses H&R Block employees of stealing customers' tax
refunds by using their personal information to file fraudulent
tax returns in their names, defrauding the state and federal
government.
Lead plaintiffs Sharon Hawa and Kevin and Deborah Johns say H&R
Block "has long known that some of its employees have improperly
accessed its customers' tax returns and personal identifying
information and used that information to file fraudulent tax
returns in the name of those customers in order to steal tax
refunds from federal and state governments."
In the class action in Bronx County Supreme Court, Ms. Hawa says
she complained that when she filed her 2008 taxes at an H&R Block
office in the Bronx, the federal government rejected her return
because someone had already filed one in her name. The IRS had
already issued a refund in the amount of $8,499, according to the
lawsuit.
Ms. Hawa says the police told her that she was among dozens of
victims whose identity had been stolen by a temporary employee of
H&R Block "or a group of individuals working at H&R Block."
The Johns similarly claim that someone at H&R Block stole their
$6,145 refund using the previous year's adjusted gross income, "a
figure known only to Mr. and Mrs. Johns, their employers, and
employees of H&R Block."
The plaintiffs are suing H&R Block for negligence; gross
negligence in the hiring, retention, training and supervision of
its employees; breach of fiduciary duty and state law violations.
They demand $100,000 plus $1,000 per violation of law.
A copy of the Complaint in Hawa, et al. v. H&R Block Tax and
Business Services, Inc., Index No. 302909-2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. Cty.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/12/HR%20Block.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin C. Mallon, Esq.
James B. Fishman, Esq.
FISHMAN & MALLON, LLP
305 Broadway, Suite 900
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: 212-897-5840
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ERISA Complaint Filed in D. Md.
---------------------------------------------------
LawsuitTicker.com reports that Hartford Financial Services Group
Inc. will soon have to defend itself against a class action-suit
brought by common stock shareholders.
The company is accused of making misleading statements about its
financial status. According the suit, the company was seeing its
position deteriorate as a result of swap contracts and other
bond-related instruments that went in the tank when the credit
crisis escalated
The suit was filed in Maryland, LawsuitTicker.com relates.
Court records show that Cullinane v. The Hartford Financial
Services Group, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00858 (D. Md.) (Nickerson,
J.), asserting claims under ERISA, was filed on April 7, 2010.
In that litigation, the Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth P. Niman, Esq.
INGERMAN AND HOROWITZ LLP
20 Park Ave
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: 410-539-1200
E-mail: kniman@ihlaw.com
IOVATE HEALTH: Removes Hydroxycut Suit to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sevan Kevorkian, Olga Isaicheva, and Boris Ermolov, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Iovate Health
Sciences U.S.A., Inc., Case No. RT10501668 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Alameda
Cty.) was filed on March 2, 2010. In the complaint, Mr.
Kevorkian accused the weight loss supplement manufacturer of
falsely advertising that its Hydroxycut-branded weight-loss
products were safe for consumption, in violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Business &
Professions Code.
On April 9, 2010, on the basis of original jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), Iovate removed the lawsuit to the
Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No.
10-cv-01530 to the proceeding.
The Defendant is represented by:
Arturo J. Gonzalez, Esq.
William F. Tarantino, Esq.
Alexandria A. Amezcua, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
E-mail: Agonzalez@mofo.com
Wtarantino@mofo.com
Aamezcua@mofo.com
- and -
Erin M. Bosman, Esq.
Jae Hong Lee, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130-2040
Telephone: (858) 720-5100
E-mail: Ebosman@mofo.com
JaeHongLee@mofo.com
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aleksey Tovarian, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ALEKSEY TOVARIAN
212 Sutter St., Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 984-9990
- and -
David R. Ongaro, Esq.
Amelia D. Winchester, Esq.
ONGARO BURTT LLP
595 Market St., Suite 610
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 433-3900
JONES SODA: Being Sold for Unfair Price, Wash. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the makers of Jones Soda
tried to sell its company to Reed's Inc. for $9.7 million, an
unfair price, a class action claims in King County (Wash.)
Superior Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Beasley v. Ricci, et al., Case No.
10-2-13266-0 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/12/Soda%20JOnes.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Hathaway, Esq.
JOHN W. HATHAWAY, PLLC
701 Fifth Ave., Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98104-7068
Telephone: 206-624-7100
E-mail: jhathaway@seanet.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
30 Broad St., 15th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: 212-363-7500
E-mail: jmonteverde@zlk.com
L.A. SPECIALTY: Accused of Failing to Provide Meal Periods
----------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Solorzano, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. L.A. Specialty Produce Co., Case No. BC435326 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 7, 2010), accuses the
wholesaler of failing to provide meal periods, intentionally
failing to provide itemized employee wage statements, untimely
payment of wages upon termination, and violations of the Business
and Professions Code. Mr. Solorzano worked as a "route driver"
with L.A. Specialty between June 2009 and February 2010.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 980
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 703-8985
- and -
Scott A. Miller, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. MILLER, APC
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 645
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 788-8081
- and -
Steven L. Miller, Esq.
STEVEN L. MILLER, APLC
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 645
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 986-8900
LOBLAW: Sued, with Siena, After Listeria-Related Meat Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Susanna Kelley at The Canadian Press reported last month that
Loblaw and Siena Foods are facing a class-action lawsuit over the
latest meat recall due to Listeria contamination.
The suit, filed in Ottawa, states Siena was aware of the
"potential toxicity" of several of its products but only chose to
only inform distributors, putting customers at risk.
"Only after a government investigation conclusively suggested a
link between the Listeria monocytogenes outbreak and Siena Foods
Ltd. products did Siena Foods Ltd. expand its product recall,"
the suit alleges.
"The class members had never been warned of the toxic character
of the products they purchased."
The suit also states that Loblaw (TSX: L.TO), as the retailer,
bears responsibility to ensure the product is fit for
consumption.
One of the plaintiffs, Castro Pedro of Leamington, Ont., was
diagnosed with Listeria meningitis after eating a variety of
Siena meats, the suit alleges.
Pedro, 58, was in the intensive care unit for 16 days and in
hospital for more than three weeks, the suit states.
"A proximate cause of a heart attack and stroke suffered by
Castro Pedro was the listeriosis that flowed from eating the
Siena meats, including ham and salami," it alleges.
The lead plaintiff, John Morgan of Toronto, purchased a Siena
cooked ham last month and after eating it began to "experience
sweating, backache, headache, vomiting and diarrhea," the suit
states.
The allegations have not been proven in court.
Calls to Loblaw and Siena Foods were not immediately returned.
The suit is seeking $1 million in general damages and special
damages in excess of $1 million for the class members, "or other
such amounts" that the court finds appropriate.
Siena has recalled all affected products, including its cooked
ham, which may have been distributed nationally.
The Ontario government said Monday that it had ruled out a
connection between the deaths of five people from listeriosis and
the recalled meat products from Siena Foods.
The Ministry of Health said there is no food consumption history
or lab data supporting a link between the Siena products and the
deaths.
Spokesman Andrew Morrison said the listeriosis strains involved
in the five deaths have a separate DNA fingerprint from each
other, indicating they did not come from the same source.
Out of 14 listeriosis cases reported since January, including the
five deaths, only two appear to have come from Siena.
Morrison said those two people were hospitalized but are now both
back at home.
Consumption of food tainted with Listeria can lead to high fever,
severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. The illness is a
particular danger to pregnant women and their unborn children,
the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems, cancer,
diabetes, kidney disease or AIDS.
Symptoms usually appear within two to 30 days, and up to 90 days
after consuming contaminated food, according to the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency. The average incubation period is about three
weeks, says the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
LODGIAN INC: Negotiates Dismissal of Merger-Related Ga. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 22, 2010, Lodgian, Inc., LSREF Lodging Investments, LLC,
and LSREF Lodging Merger Co., Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
LSREF, entered into a Merger Agreement, pursuant to which the
Merger Sub will be merged with and into Lodgian, with Lodgian
surviving the Merger and remaining as a wholly owned subsidiary
of LSREF.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 9 and
Mar. 29, 2010, a putative class action was commenced in the
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia against Lodgian, each of
Lodgian's directors, LSREF and the Merger Sub, alleging that,
among other things, our board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to our stockholders in approving and adopting a
merger agreement that allegedly contains preclusive deal
protection measures and unfair merger consideration. On Feb. 23,
2010, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim that
the members of Lodgian's board of directors had breached their
fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with the Schedule 14A
preliminary proxy statement that the Company filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2010. On Apr. 1,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining
order seeking to enjoin the completion of the Merger.
On Apr. 12, 2010, Lodgian agreed in principle to settle the
putative class action. Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, all claims relating to the Merger Agreement and the
Merger will be dismissed on behalf of the settlement class. The
proposed settlement is subject to certain conditions, including
but not limited to court approval and consummation of the Merger.
As part of the proposed settlement Lodgian has agreed not to
object to the plaintiffs' counsel's application to the court for
an award of fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed
$240,000. The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of
merger consideration to be paid to Lodgian's shareholders in the
Merger or change any other terms of the Merger or Merger
Agreement.
Lodgian believes that no further supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
putative class action delaying or adversely affecting the Merger
and to minimize the expense of defending such action, the company
has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to
make certain additional disclosures related to Houlihan Lokey's
work in a Form 8-K tendered to the SEC on Apr. 12, 2010, which is
available at http://is.gd/bqGbVat no charge.
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Policy Owner Wants Fair Share of Dividends
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Chavez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, et al.,
Case No. BC435321 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 7,
2010), asserts breach of contract and fraud. Ms. Chavez accuses
MassMutual of failing to pay accumulated dividends, including
settement dividends to its participating term life insurance
policy holders or beneficiaries under its term life contracts
despite the policies' substantial contributions to MassMutual's
divisible surplus, and concealing the fact that its term life
insurance policyholders annually contribute substantial gains to
MassMutual's divisible surplus during the last several years by
charging a greater premium than was necessary given the
significant drop in mortality rates over the last few decades,
significantly lower reinsurance rates being charged by reinsurers
than what was being charged to policyowners, and substantial
commissions MassMutual received from reinsurers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy J. Morris, Esq.
Mary T. Rahmes, Esq.
GIANELLI & MORRIS ALC
626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 489-1600
E-mail: tim.morris@gmlawyers.com
mary.rahmes@gmlawyers.com
MONSTER CABLE: Deceptive Claims About HDMI Cable Product Alleged
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Roemer and Michael Hahn, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Moster Cable Products, Inc., Case
No. BC435478 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010),
accuses Monster Cable of making false statements that its
Specific Monster High Definition Multimeda Interface cables
provide performance superior to less expensive HDMI cables when
used with 120/240hz LCD televisions, in violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California
Business and Professions Code. Mr. Roemer says that contrary to
Monsters' representations, a special HDMI cable is not needed.
Mr. Roemer alleges that cables that cost roughly half as much as
Monster cables performs just as efficiently as those cables being
marketed by Monster.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Lee, Esq.
Enoch H. Liang, Esq.
LEE TRAN & LIANG APLC
601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 4025
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-3737
- and -
Scott J. Ferrel, Esq.
Roger E. Borg, Esq.
Michael E. Velarde, Esq.
NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 717-3000
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUBLAW LLC
1818 Market St., 13th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (610) 453-6551
NATIONAL STORES: Accused of Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------
Edwin O'Neal, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. National Stores, Inc., Case No. BC435441 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010), accuses the retailer of not
paying them for all overtime hours worked, failing to provide
meal and rest periods, failing to pay all wages due upon
termination, and failing to provide accurate wage statements, in
violation of the Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code. Mr. O'Neal works as a Store Manager at
National Stores' retail facility located in Watsonville,
California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus D. Bradley, Esq.
Lynn P. Whitlock, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
29229 Canwood St., Suite 208
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
- and -
Walter Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
110 Pine Ave., Suite 725
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (888) 474-7242
NEW YORK: Court Okays Staten Island Ferry Case Contingency Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fass at the New York Law Journal report that a Manhattan
attorney who secured an $18.3 million verdict in a case stemming
from the 2003 Staten Island Ferry disaster is entitled to the
full one-third fee called for in his retainer agreement, a
federal judge has ruled.
The decision by the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein in McMillan v.
The City of New York, Case Nos. 08-cv-2887 and 03-cv-6049
(E.D.N.Y.), marks the latest in a series of ups and downs for
attorney Evan Torgan, who has fought for nearly two years to have
his retainer agreement upheld.
In September 2008, Weinstein cut Torgan's fee to 20 percent from
the 33 percent set forth in his retainer, a reduction to just
over $3.6 million from about $6 million. The judge stated that
the reduced fee was appropriate because the litigation required
less effort and constituted less risk than a typical personal
injury action, as the city's liability for the ferry crash had
been determined in a prior proceeding handled by other attorneys.
When Torgan asked the court to reconsider the reduction,
Weinstein forwarded the matter to Eastern District Magistrate
Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky. The judge also asked the magistrate
judge to consider whether Torgan's initial meetings with client
James McMillan, which took place in a Staten Island hospital in
the days following the accident, might merit disciplinary action.
In a decision issued in March, the magistrate judge found that
Torgan did not commit any potential ethical violations, but that
the fee reduction to 22 percent from 33 percent was appropriate.
In a two-page decision Monday, Weinstein declined to affirm the
magistrate judge's recommendation, reinstating the original 33-
percent fee called for by the retainer agreement.
"The fee in the retainer agreement is confirmed and supported by
the client as one he freely agreed to and now wishes to pay in
full," the judge wrote in McMillan v. City of New York, 08-cv-
2887.
But the judge also ordered the difference between the reinstated
fee and the reduced fee -- i.e., 13 percent of the net award, or
approximately $2.7 million -- to be placed in escrow for possible
payment to the attorneys who oversaw the liability phase of the
ferry litigation. There is pending litigation over claims for a
portion of the fee by those attorneys, the judge said.
"Their work allegedly resulted in rejection of New York City's
claim of limited liability under maritime law," Weinstein wrote.
"The benefits of that aspect of this quasi-class action
litigation allegedly accrued to hundreds of injured claimants,
including the client."
The plaintiff in the underlying action, McMillan, was on the
second deck of the Andrew J. Barberi when it struck a concrete
maintenance pier on Oct. 15, 2003. Flying debris shattered
McMillan's spine, paralyzing him from the shoulders down.
McMillan and 171 other individuals sued the city for their
injuries. The cases were joined for the issue of whether the
city's liability would be capped under maritime law. The
attorneys for the liability phase -- liaison counsel Bosco,
Bisignano & Mascolo and maritime counsel of Dougherty, Ryan,
Giuffra, Zambito & Hession -- are seeking 8 percent of the gross
recovery.
Although the liability counsel are seeking 8 percent of the
gross, some plaintiffs may be assessed a larger share because
their awards followed the liability ruling, and thus directly
profited from the attorneys' work.
Torgan said Monday that he was "delighted that the judge found
that I acted ethically and tried the case with great skill." He
added that he was also "very happy" that Weinstein recognized the
one-third fee as "an appropriate retainer."
Richard Godosky of Godosky & Gentile represents Bosco Bisignano
and Dougherty Ryan.
NOBELTEL LLC: Sued for Providing Fewer Minutes than Advertised
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Sabaj and Liberia Castano, on hehalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Nobeltel LLC, et al., Case No.
BC435467 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010),
assert fraud and violations of the California Bus. & Professions
Code. Mr. Sabaj and Ms. Castano allege that the carrier falsely
advertised its prepaid calling cards contain a specific number of
calling minutes when in reality only a portion is actually
received. Plaintiffs relate that Nobeltel imposed fee surcharges
not previously disclosed. As a result, consumers of Nobeltel's
phone cards paid a significantly higher rate per minute than
advertised.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Lee, Esq.
K. Luan Tran, Esq.
Enoch H. Liang, Esq.
LEE, TRAN & LIANG APLC
601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 4025
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-3737
- and -
Tymothy S. MacLeod, Esq.
Rana S. Ziaee, Esq.
MACLEOD & ZIAEE, LLP
2603 Main St., Suite 1190
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 336-7600
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss New York Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class
action case remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's
March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated.
Defendants in the case include NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Corporation and its individual directors, several securitization
trusts sponsored by the company, and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and
the purported class members.
On Aug. 31, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims.
NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
and its subsidiaries holds non-conforming residential mortgage
securities. The company previously originated, purchased,
securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential
nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities. It
retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio,
interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased,
and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in
which it retained interests. Effective Aug. 1, 2008, the Company
acquired a 75% interest in StreetLinks National Appraisal
Services LLC (StreetLinks), a residential mortgage appraisal
company. The company also acquired a majority interest in Advent
Financial Services LLC.
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle "Jones" Suit for $925,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc., has agreed to settle the purported
class action case filed by Jennifer Jones for $925,000, according
to the company's March 31, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.
On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jennifer Jones filed a purported class
action case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri against the company, certain former and current
officers of the company, and unnamed members of the Company's
"Retirement Committee".
Plaintiff, a former employee of the company, seeks class action
certification on behalf of all persons who were participants in
or beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) plan from May 4, 2006
until Nov. 15, 2007 and whose accounts included investments in
the company's common stock. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages
alleging that the company's common stock was an inappropriately
risky investment option for retirement savings, and that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing investment
of some of the assets contained in the 401(k) plan to be made in
the company's common stock.
On Nov. 12, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss which was
denied by the Court on Feb. 11, 2009.
On April 6, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification. The company sought permission from the 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the order granting class
certification.
On May 11, 2009 the Court of Appeals granted the company
permission to appeal the class certification order.
On Nov. 9, 2009, the company reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs. The settlement provides for payment by the company's
insurer of $925,000. A hearing for Court approval of the
settlement is set for April 22, 2010.
NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
and its subsidiaries holds non-conforming residential mortgage
securities. The company previously originated, purchased,
securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential
nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities. It
retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio,
interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased,
and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in
which it retained interests. Effective Aug. 1, 2008, the Company
acquired a 75% interest in StreetLinks National Appraisal
Services LLC (StreetLinks), a residential mortgage appraisal
company. The company also acquired a majority interest in Advent
Financial Services LLC.
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Defends Shareholder Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., defends a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
The suit was filed on on March 5, 2010, by Drew Weaver, allegedly
a purchaser of shares of Novelos' common stock on Feb. 1, 2010,
on behalf of himself and all others who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock in the period between Dec.
14, 2009 and Feb. 24, 2010, against Novelos and its President and
Chief Executive Officer, Harry S. Palmin.
The complaint claims that the company violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged disclosures
related to the Phase 3 Trial.
The suit is Weaver v. Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-10394 (D. Mass.) (Gorton, J.).
Mr. Weaver is represented by:
David Pastor, Esq.
GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: 617-742-9700
E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com
RANCHO VISTA: Homeowner Wants Compensation for House's Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Ely, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Rancho Vista Development Co., Case No. BC435464 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 8, 2010), assert breach of express
warranties and breach of implied warranties of merchantability.
Mr. Ely says that the developer mass produced single family
dwellings at its housing development more familiarly know as
SKYLINE, in the City of Palmdale, County of Los Angeles, which
contained construction defects due to design and specifications
deficiencies and other "latent" deficiencies. As a direct
result, Mr. Ely says that he suffered damages of an amount
presently unknown.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luke P. Ryan, Esq.
Michael T. Quinn, Esq.
SHINNICK & RYAN LLP
1810 State St.
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-5900
RELIABLE BUILDING: Sued for Not Paying for All Hours Worked
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Rivas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Reliable Building Maintenance, Inc., Case No. BC435314 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 6, 2010), charges Reliable with failure to:
(i) compensate employees for all hours worked; (ii) pay overtime wages;
(iii) provide rest and meal periods; (iv) provide accurate wage
statements; (v) timely pay all final wages; and (vi) secret payment of
lower wages than required by statute, in violation of the California
Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. Mr. Rivas
worked as custodian for Reliable Building Maintenance.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
9454 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite 3
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
E-mail: setarehlaw@sbcglobal.net
- and -
Louis Benowitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
9454 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite 34
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
E-mail: louis@benowitzlaw.com
ROSS STORES: Lawsuits Over Wage and Hour Claims Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc., remains a named defendant in pending class-
action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims.
Class action litigation involving allegations that hourly
associates have missed meal and/or rest break periods, as well
as allegations of unpaid overtime wages to assistant store
managers at all company stores under federal and state law,
remains pending as of Jan. 30, 2010.
No further details regarding the litigations were disclosed in
the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
30, 2010.
Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com/-- and its
subsidiaries operate two chains of off-price retail apparel and
home accessories stores in the U.S. Its stores offer branded
apparel, accessories, footwear, and home fashions for men and
women between the ages of 25 and 54, as well as gift items,
linens, and other home related merchandise.
SERVICEMASTER CO: Plaintiffs in Four Suits Dismiss Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in four complaints against The ServiceMaster Co. have
voluntarily dismissed their cases against the company.
Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of
ServiceMaster by the Equity Sponsors, five complaints were filed
against ServiceMaster concerning the proposed merger.
The suits are:
(1) Kaiman v. Spainhour, et al. (filed in Chancery Court in
Memphis, Tennessee);
(2) Golombuski v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed in
Circuit Court in Memphis, Tennessee);
(3) Sokol and Bowen v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed
in Circuit Court in Memphis, Tennessee);
(4) Palmer v. The ServiceMaster Co.,et al. (filed in Cook
County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois); and
(5) Smith v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al. (filed in
Chancery Court for Newcastle County, Delaware).
In the matter Smith v. The ServiceMaster Co., et al., on Sept.
29, 2008, the Court approved a settlement agreement that
contained no award of monetary payments to the plaintiffs. The
court's approval of settlement is now final and non-appealable,
and the company satisfied the payment of the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees in November 2008. The amount of the payment of
the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees was not material to the company's
financial condition or results of operations.
In November 2009, based on settlement in the Smith case, the
plaintiffs in the other cases voluntarily dismissed their cases
at no cost to the company, according to the company's March 30,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
The ServiceMaster Co. -- http://www.servicemaster.com/-- is a
national company serving both residential and commercial
customers. The Company's services include lawn care, landscape
maintenance, termite and pest control, home warranty, disaster
response and reconstruction, cleaning and disaster restoration,
house cleaning, furniture repair, and home inspection.
SERVICEMASTER CO: Settlement in "Squires" Gets Preliminary Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, gave its
preliminary approval to the settlement agreement resolving the
matter Squires v. The ServiceMaster Company and Clayton, Dubilier
& Rice, Inc., according to the company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
On March 11, 2008, a lawsuit was filed by Vernon Squires, the
Company's former General Counsel, on behalf of himself and a
putative class, against the Company and CD&R, in the Chancery
Court of Shelby County, Tennessee.
The complaint alleges that, in connection with the acquisition of
the company by the Equity Sponsors, the defendants improperly
cancelled out-of-the-money stock options that had been previously
granted to individuals in connection with certain stock option
plans.
On Jan. 5, 2010, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement
agreement that calls for the company to pay monies into a
settlement fund that will be used to pay all claims asserted, or
arising, from cancellation of the stock options, including claims
for attorney fees related thereto. The amount to be paid into
the settlement fund is not material to the Company's financial
condition or results of operations. The hearing to consider
final approval of the settlement was scheduled last March 30,
2010.
The ServiceMaster Co. -- http://www.servicemaster.com/-- is a
national company serving both residential and commercial
customers. The Company's services include lawn care, landscape
maintenance, termite and pest control, home warranty, disaster
response and reconstruction, cleaning and disaster restoration,
house cleaning, furniture repair, and home inspection.
SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Defends Private Plaintiffs' Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Jewelers Inc., a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited,
continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York
In March 2008, private plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit
for an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers Inc.,
alleging that US store-level employment practices are
discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities.
No further details regarding the lawsuit were provided in the
company's March 30, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan.
30, 2010.
Signet Jewelers Limited -- http://www.signetjewelers.com/--
formerly Signet Group plc, is a specialty retail jeweler, with
stores in the United States, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland
and Channel Islands. In the United States, as of Jan. 31, 2009,
Signet operated 1,401 stores in 50 states. Its stores trade
nationally in malls and off-mall locations as Kay Jewelers (Kay),
and regionally under a number of mall-based brands. Destination
superstores trade nationwide as Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry
(Jared). In the United Kinfdom, the stores trade as H.Samuel,
Ernest Jones and Leslie Davis, and are situated in High Street
locations (main shopping thoroughfares with high pedestrian
traffic) or shopping malls. The United Kingdom division operated
558 stores, as of Jan. 31, 2009, including 14 stores in the
Republic of Ireland. The Company operates in two geographical
segments: the United States division (approximately 76% of sales)
and the United Kingdom division (approximately 24% of sales).
SUPER REMATE: Sued for Not Paying All Wages Due
-----------------------------------------------
Christian Espinoza, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Super Remate de Autos, et al., Case No. BC435165
(Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 2, 2010), accuses the
used car dealer of failing to pay all wages due, failing to pay
the minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to
provide meal and rest periods, and other labor code violations.
Mr. Espinoza and the other class members are current or former
automobile salesperson employees at Super Remate's used
automobile dealership.
Mr. Espinoza says he works on a commission-only basis, earning a
commission of 22% of the profit from each automobile that he
sells. Mr. Espinoza claims that he did not actually receive the
full commission earned because Super Remate would deduct from his
commission business expenses not directly traceable to the
vehicle sold and post-repair service costs. If a customer
defaults on his payments, Super Remate would also charge back
previously earned and paid commission from the employees'
subsequent wages. Mr. Espinoza explains that if a salesperson-
employee was not able to close a sale during a pay period, that
person would not receive any wages for hours worked. Further,
Mr. Espinoza says Super Remate forced employees to perform work
totally unrelated to sales, including vehicle repossessions,
without compensation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett S. Markson, Esq.
Timothy A. Pico, Esq.
MARKSON PICO LLP
444 S. Flower St., Suite 2160
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 895-4000
TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Subrogation Action From Insurance Firms
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Huffman at ConsumerAffairs.com reports that Allstate and
State Farm have confirmed that their companies have begun a
"subrogation" process with Toyota, though neither firm would
provide much in the way of detail.
Subrogation is the shifting of a financial burden from one party
to another. In this case, the auto insurance companies that have
paid out millions of dollars over the years for accidents
involving Toyotas will try to recover some of that money.
Industry sources say Allstate has notified Toyota that it has
claims that it believes may be the result of a product defect.
While some sources say the initial review of cases may only
extend back a few months, the potential is there for a wider
review.
In January Toyota recalled 2.3 million vehicles to repair a
"sticky" accelerator pedal, which it described as the possible
source of some sudden acceleration incidents. It has steadfastly
insisted the electronics system is not at fault.
Both ConsumerAffairs.com and official sources like the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration have complaints about
sudden acceleration in Toyotas that extend back to at least 2005.
USA Today quotes Mark Bunim, an attorney with Case Closure, a
mediation firm, as saying subrogation actions could end up
costing Toyota as much as $30 million, and the insurance
companies wouldn't be the only ones getting paid. Consumers who
paid deductibles involved in those claims could also get refunds.
Claim denied
According to USA Today, State Farm attempted to recover claims in
2007 for an accident involving a 2005 Toyota Camry. NHTSA said
it had looked into the sudden acceleration complaint and closed
its investigation. State Farm was not reimbursed, the newspaper
said.
This is but the latest setback for the Japanese automaker, which
holds around 17 percent of the US automotive market. Many of
these problems have emerged since February, when Clarence Ditlow
of the Center for Auto Safety told ConsumerAffairs.com that the
carmaker could bounce back, but only on one condition.
"For the next year they have to bat 1,000," he said. "If they
make a mistake they have to correct it almost overnight."
Toyota has attempted to get the healing process started with a
number of financial incentives to bring customers back into the
showrooms. While it's worked so far, a protracted battle with
insurance companies -- who could increase consumers' rates on
policies insuring Toyotas -- could put the strategy to the test.
UHS OF DELAWARE: Sued for Non-Payment of Agreed Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Latelle Barton, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. UHS of Delaware, Inc., dba Universal Health services
of Delaware, Inc., Case No. BC435274 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty. Apr. 6, 2010), accuses the healthcare provider of
not providing meal and rest periods, failing to pay wages at the
agreed rate, failing to pay overtime compensation, untimely
payment of compensation upon termination, forfeiture of vacation
pay, and other violations of the Labor Code and Business &
Professions Code. Mr. Latelle worked as a Psychiatric Assistant
for UHS' healthcare facility, De Amo Behavioral Health, in
Torrance, California, between December 2004 and January 2010.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus D. Bradley, Esq.
Lynn P. Whitlock, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
29229 Canwood St., Suite 208
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
- and -
Thomas A. Cifarelli, Esq.
Dawn M. Smith, Esq.
Nicole M. Johnson, Esq.
THE CIFARELLI LAW FIRM, LLP
200 West Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 547-3992
WEDBUSH MORGAN: Sued for Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Fitzwilliam, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc., Case No. BC435311
(Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 6, 2010), asserts
unlawful and unfair business practice in violation of Sec. 17200
of the California Business & Professions Code. Ms. Fitzwilliam
says Wedbush exploits employees by extracting high commissions
and service fees for their personal trades and investments, stock
commissions, and other fees not assessed at other brokerage
firms. Further, Ms. Fitzwilliam says that Wedbush unlawfully
requires employees to maintain their personal security and
investment accounts only with Wedbush. Ms. Fitzwilliam was a
Senior Vice President at Wedbush.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
Theo Giovanni Arbucci, Esq.
BLECHER & COLLINS, P.C.
515 South Figueroa St., Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334
Telephone: (213) 622-4222
E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com
jarbucci@blechercollins.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Northern Lights Fined $70T for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investigators from Alaska Occupation Safety and Health say that
Northern Lights Center LLC, the owner of the building that had
housed the Matanuska Maid creamery and warehouse in Midtown,
Anchorage, Alaska, was fined US$70,000 for failing to protect
employees renovating the structure, the Anchorage Daily News
reports.
The investigators say Northern Lights knew the building contained
asbestos but failed to perform an adequate asbestos exposure
assessment. The Company also failed to ensure proper exposure
control methods were used and failed to warn employees about the
asbestos hazards prior to performing demolition activities,
according to AKOSH.
Safety enforcement officer Keith Bailey said he first approached
the site in April 2009 in response to a complaint from a worker.
The Company was unable to provide an asbestos hazard assessment,
and a survey conducted with an environmental company discovered
asbestos was present, Mr. Bailey said.
Investigators did not issue a stop-work order after the initial
visit, though the Company was put on notice that it needed to
take action to avoid putting workers at risk, said Grey Mitchell,
director of the state Labor Standards and Safety Division. Then
in June 2009, the city informed investigators that work was
continuing at the site, he said.
In July 2009, Mr. Bailey did an inspection and found that
additional construction had been taking place, despite the stop-
work order, he said.
AKOSH issued the Company two citations in September 2009.
Northern Lights Center initially contested the citations, but now
has agreed to pay the penalty specified in the initial citations,
Mr. Mitchell said.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Claim v. C&D Disposal Filed April 9 in Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Attorney General's office, on April 9, 2010, sued C & D
Disposal Technologies, Llc and owner Joseph G. Scugoza, claiming
violations of regulations (including asbestos-related) governing
the operation of demolition material landfills, the Herald Star
Online reports.
The suit was filed in Jefferson County Common Pleas Court.
C&D Disposal has been a licensed demolition material landfill
since 2004. The facility is not permitted to accept solid waste.
The suit claims the Company filled the landfill eight times since
June 30, 2008, illegally accepted solid waste and once accepted
asbestos containing material.
The lawsuit also claims demolition landfills are required to
unload debris in designated, marked zones. Five times since June
2008, C&D Disposal failed to unload waste in the designated zone
at the facility, the lawsuit states.
Demolition landfills are required to cover the material on a
weekly basis with soil to prevent fires. C & D Disposal 12 times
failed to cover the demolition debris on a weekly basis. There
was a fire in the material at C & D Disposal on Dec. 31, 2009,
according to the lawsuit.
The attorney general's office states C & D Disposal illegally
disposed of demolition material and allowed open dumping of solid
waste on areas outside the working face of the landfill. The
Company also failed to file an adequate bond based on the acreage
of the facility, according to the suit.
The attorney general's office seeks a court order forcing the
Company to comply with demolition material landfills and seeks
fines of US$10,000 per day for each violation.
COMPANY PROFILE:
C & D Disposal Technologies, Llc
3250 County Road 26
Steubenville, Ohio 43953
Phone: (740) 264-7307
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 800 Exposure Claims Remaining v. AbitibiBowater
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 800 asbestos-related personal injury actions remain against
AbitibiBowater Inc., according to the Company's annual report
filed on March 31, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Since late 2001, Bowater Incorporated, several other paper
companies, and numerous other companies have been named as
defendants in asbestos personal injury actions. These actions
generally allege occupational exposure to numerous products.
The Company has denied the allegations and no specific product of
the Company has been identified by the plaintiffs in any of the
actions as having caused or contributed to any individual
plaintiff's alleged asbestos-related injury.
These suits have been filed by about 1,800 claimants who sought
monetary damages in civil actions pending in state courts in
Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, New York and
Texas.
About 1,000 of these claims have been dismissed, either
voluntarily or by summary judgment. Any pending actions against
Bowater are currently stayed as a result of the commencement of
the Chapter 11 Cases.
Headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, AbitibiBowater Inc.
produces newsprint and coated and specialty papers. In addition,
the Company produces and sells market pulp and wood products.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at Feb. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corporation was a defendant in 22 asbestos-
related cases as of Feb. 28, 2010, compared with 20 cases as of
Nov. 30, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on April 1, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits. These cases generally seek unspecified
damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure
to products previously manufactured by the Company and others.
During the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010, there were five new
asbestos-related cases, one case dismissed, two cases settled, no
judgments and recovery of US$7,000, net of expenses.
Based in Pasadena, Calif., Ameron International Corporation
produces water transmission lines; fiberglass-composite pipe for
transporting oil, chemicals and corrosive fluids and specialized
materials; and products used in infrastructure projects. The
Company operates businesses in North America, South America,
Europe and Asia.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Continuing v. TOTAL S.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL S.A. continues to be involved in claims related to
occupational diseases caused by asbestos exposure, according to
the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on April 1, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Like many other industrial groups, the Company is affected by
reports of occupational diseases caused by asbestos exposure. The
circumstances described in these reports generally concern
activities prior to the beginning of the 1980s, long before the
adoption of more comprehensive bans on the new installation of
asbestos-containing products in most of the countries where the
Company operates (Jan. 1, 1997, in France).
The Company's various businesses are not particularly likely to
lead to significant exposure to asbestos-related risks, since
this material was generally not used in manufacturing processes,
except in limited cases. The main potential sources of exposure
are related to the use of certain insulating components in
industrial equipment.
These components are being gradually eliminated from the
Company's equipment through asbestos-elimination plans that have
been underway for several years. However, considering the long
period of time that may elapse before the harmful results of
exposure to asbestos arise (up to 40 years), the Company
anticipates that other reports may be filed in the years to come.
Asbestos-related issues have been subject to close monitoring in
all the Company's business units.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company estimates that the ultimate cost
of all asbestos-related claims paid or pending is not likely to
have a material effect on the financial situation of the Company.
Headquartered in Courbevoie, France, TOTAL S.A. engages in all
aspects of the petroleum industry, including Upstream operations
(oil and gas exploration, development and production, LNG) and
Downstream operations (refining, marketing and the trading and
shipping of crude oil and petroleum products). The Company also
produces base chemicals (petrochemicals and fertilizers) and
specialty chemicals for the industrial and consumer markets.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Corporation Subject to Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, FutureFuel Corp. may be party to, or targets
of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including
product liability, personal injury, asbestos, patent and
intellectual property, which the Company expects to be handled
and defended in the ordinary course of business.
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 Clayton, Mo., FutureFuel Corp. manufactures
biodiesel and other biofuels. However, its core business is
specialty chemicals, which includes such chemicals as herbicides,
detergent additives, colorants, photographic and imaging
chemicals, and food additives.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PMA Capital Has $26MM Gross Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
PMA Capital Corporation's gross reserves for asbestos-related
losses were US$26 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$29.5
million at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual
report filed on March 16, 2010, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company's net reserves for asbestos-related losses were
US$10.3 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$11.4 million
at Dec. 31, 2008.
Headquartered in Blue Bell, Pa., PMA Capital Corporation is a
holding company whose operating subsidiaries provide insurance
and fee-based services. Its insurance products include workers'
compensation and other commercial property and casualty lines of
insurance. Fee-based services include third party administrator,
managing general agent and program administrator services.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,168 Injury Claims Pending v. Ampco at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced 8,168 open asbestos-related
claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 9,354 open
claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the
Company's annual report filed on March 16, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company faced 8,870 open asbestos claims for the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 9,415 claims for the six
months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13,
2009)
The Company resolved 3,336 claims for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009, compared with 1,015 claims for the year ended Dec. 31,
2008. Gross settlement and defense costs were US$28,744,000 for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$19,102,000 for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries
(Asbestos Liability) and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution
and another former division of the Company. Those subsidiaries,
and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a number of
defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state
and federal courts.
A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs were
reported and paid by insurers. In 2006, for the first time, a
claim for Asbestos Liability against one of the Company's
subsidiaries was tried to a jury. The trial resulted in a defense
verdict.
Plaintiffs appealed that verdict and in 2008 the California Court
of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case back
to the trial court.
Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for
historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for
Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers).
Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept
financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies
and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity
allocation formulas, for a substantial majority of the pending
claims for Asbestos Liability.
The claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution of the
Company, about 325 as of Dec. 31, 2009, are not included within
the Coverage Arrangement. The one claim filed against the former
division also is not included within the Coverage Arrangement.
The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
Buffalo, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering
Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical
products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former
subsidiary of the Company (the Products).
The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization
on access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than
the limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access
the policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a
Product.
In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the
Products will erode the coverage under the policies available to
the Company and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability
alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other
historical products of the Company and its subsidiaries covered
by the applicable policies.
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation
operates in two business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls
segment consists of Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union
Electric Steel) and The Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll).
The Air and Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo
Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Howden's Lawsuit v. Ampco Ongoing in Pa. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howden Buffalo, Inc.'s asbestos-related insurance lawsuit against
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and various insurance companies is
ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.
On Aug. 4, 2009, Howden filed a lawsuit against the Company, two
insurance companies that allegedly issued policies to Howden that
are not relevant to the Company, and two other insurance
companies that issued excess insurance policies covering certain
subsidiaries of the Company (Excess Policies), but that are not
yet part of a Coverage Arrangement.
In the lawsuit, Howden seeks a declaratory judgment from the
court as to the respective rights and obligations of Howden, the
Company and the insurance carriers under Excess Policies. One of
the excess carriers and the Company have filed cross-claims
against each other seeking declarations regarding their
respective rights and obligations under Excess Policies issued by
that carrier.
The Company's cross-claim also seeks damages for the carrier's
failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs.
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation
operates in two business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls
segment consists of Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union
Electric Steel) and The Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll).
The Air and Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo
Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Has $147MM Long-Term Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability
amounted to US$147,093,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$187,014,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's
annual report filed on March 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
The Company's current asbestos liability amounted to US$30
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$20 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$95,430,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$95,430,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$20 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$14 million as
of Dec. 31, 2008.
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation
operates in two business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls
segment consists of Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union
Electric Steel) and The Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll).
The Air and Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo
Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Gross A&E Reserve at $638.7M at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s gross asbestos- and environmental-
related reserves were US$638.7 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared
with US$786.8 million at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the
Company's annual report filed on March 1, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company's net A&E-related reserves were US$613.1 million at
Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$749.1 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
At Dec. 31, 2009, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$141.5 million representing case reserves reported
by ceding companies, US$150.2 million representing additional
case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance
claims, US$63 million representing case reserves established by
the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt.
McKinley, and US$283.9 million representing IBNR (incurred but
not reported) reserves.
With respect to asbestos only, at Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had
gross asbestos loss reserves of US$608.8 million, or 95.3
percent, of total A&E reserves, of which US$477.9 million was for
assumed business and US$130.9 million was for direct business.
Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s
principal business, conducted through its operating segments, is
the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the United
States, Bermuda and international markets.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Cites $11.3M Net A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s net asbestos- and
environmental-related reserves amounted to US$11.3 million for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, of which US$6.5 million related to
asbestos and US$4.8 million related to environmental matters.
The Company's net A&E-related reserves amounted to US$18.5
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, of which US$10.3
million related to asbestos and US$8.2 million related to
environmental matters.
In addition, the Company has established loss and loss adjustment
expense reserves for assumed reinsurance pool business with
asbestos and environmental damage liability of US$45.6 million at
Dec. 31, 2009 and US$58.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008. These
reserves relate to pools in which the Company has terminated its
participation. However, the Company continues to be subject to
claims related to years in which the Company was a participant.
A significant part of the Company's pool reserves relates to the
Company's participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance
Association (ECRA) voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the
pool was dissolved and since that time, the business has been in
runoff. The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities
varied from one percent to six percent during these years.
The Company's participation in this pool has resulted in average
paid losses of about US$2 million annually over the past 10
years. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company's ECRA
pool reserves were lowered by US$6.3 million as the result of an
actuarial study completed by the ECRA pool.
In addition, during the year, management recorded favorable
development of US$4.3 million on a separate large claim
settlement within these pools.
Headquartered in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group,
Inc. underwrites personal and commercial property and casualty
insurance coverage.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance Has $4.49MM for Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos-related loss and settlement
expense reserves amounted to US$4,495,000 during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$4,937,000 during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's asbestos-related losses and settlement expenses
incurred amounted to US$796,000 during the year ended Dec. 31,
2009, compared with US$1,502,000 during the year ended Dec. 31,
2008.
The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental related
claims associated with the insurance business written by the
parties to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business
assumed from Employers Mutual by the reinsurance subsidiary.
Asbestos and environmental losses paid by the Company have
averaged US$946,458 per year over the past five years, but have
increased during the past two years.
At present, the pool participants are defending about 900
asbestos bodily injury lawsuits, some of which involve multiple
plaintiffs. Five former policyholders and one current
policyholder dominate the pool participants' asbestos claims.
During 2003, the pool participants were presented with several
hundred plaintiff lawsuits (primarily multi-plaintiff lawsuits)
filed against three former policyholders representing about
66,500 claimants related to exposure to asbestos or products
containing asbestos. These claims are based upon nonspecific
asbestos exposure and nonspecific injuries.
During the period 2006 through 2009, several of the multi-
plaintiff lawsuits (including the vast majority of those
associated with one former policyholder) were dismissed. During
2009, about 3,000 additional claims against one former
policyholder were reported to the pool participants. As of Dec.
31, 2009, about 5,500 of the claims remain open.
During 2006, the pool participants received notice that another
former policyholder was a named defendant in about 33,000 claims
nationwide. As of Dec. 31, 2009, about 27,000 of these claims
remain open.
Prior to 2008, actual losses paid for asbestos-related claims had
been minimal due to the plaintiffs' failure to identify an
exposure to any asbestos-containing product associated with the
pool participants' current and former policyholders. However,
paid losses increased significantly during 2008 and 2009 as a
result of claims attributed to two former policyholders.
One of these former policyholders, a broker of various products,
including asbestos, settled a claim for about US$450,000 (the
Company's share) in 2008. Prior to 2008, the asbestos exposure
associated with this former policyholder had been thought to be
relatively small.
At Dec. 31, 2009, one additional claim associated with this
former policyholder remains open, though similar exposure on that
claim is not anticipated. The other former policyholder, a
furnace manufacturer, had multiple claims settle for a total of
about US$514,000 (the Company's share) in 2008 and 2009. The
asbestos exposure associated with this former policyholder
increased during this time period, and this trend may possibly
continue into the future with increased per plaintiff
settlements.
About 170 asbestos exposure claims associated with this former
policyholder remain open. Defense costs for asbestos-related
claims continue to be rather significant due to the large number
of parties involved in the litigation proceedings and the length
of time required obtaining judgments.
During 2009, an underlying exposure decrease resulted in a
premium decrease in the other liability line. Since formula IBNR
(incurred but not reported) loss reserves are calculated through
the application of IBNR factors to premiums earned, this exposure
decrease resulted in a decrease of US$286,000 in prior accident
year IBNR loss reserves.
In addition, reserves for prior accident years' asbestos claims
were increased US$810,000 to maintain adequacy targets. The net
increase in IBNR loss reserves resulting from these two
adjustments generated US$524,000 of adverse development.
Headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa, EMC Insurance Group Inc.'s
subsidiaries EMCASCO Insurance, Illinois EMCASCO, and Dakota Fire
Insurance sell property/casualty lines including automobile,
property, liability, and workers' compensation insurance,
primarily to small and medium-sized businesses.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Still Has $277,000 Gradall Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. still has a reserve of US$277,000 concerning a
potential asbestos issue at Gradall's facility in Ohio that is
expected to be abated over time.
At December 31, 2009, the Company had an environmental reserve in
the amount of US$1,608,000 related to the acquisition of
Gradall's facility. Three specific remediation projects that were
identified prior to the acquisition are in process of remediation
with a remaining reserve balance of US$143,000.
The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential
ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before
the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third
party company located near the Gradall facility.
Headquartered in Seguin, Tex., Alamo Group Inc. designs,
manufactures, distributes and services high quality equipment for
right-of-way maintenance and agriculture.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Involved in Cases From Cryovac Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation, since the beginning of 2000, has been
served with lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac
transaction, the Company is responsible for alleged asbestos
liabilities of W. R. Grace & Co. and its subsidiaries, some of
which were also named as co-defendants in some of these actions.
In connection with the Cryovac transaction, Grace and its
subsidiaries retained all liabilities arising out of their
operations before the Cryovac transaction, whether accruing or
occurring before or after the Cryovac transaction, other than
liabilities arising from or relating to Cryovac's operations.
Among the liabilities retained by Grace are liabilities relating
to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured or sold
by Grace's subsidiaries prior to the Cryovac transaction,
including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary, W. R. Grace &
Co.-Conn., which has operated for decades and has been a
subsidiary of Grace since the Cryovac transaction.
The Cryovac transaction agreements provided that, should any
claimant seek to hold the Company or any of its subsidiaries
responsible for liabilities retained by Grace or its
subsidiaries, including the asbestos-related liabilities, Grace
and its subsidiaries would indemnify and defend the Company.
Among these lawsuits are several purported class actions and a
number of personal injury lawsuits. Some plaintiffs seek damages
for personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical
monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an
attic insulation product.
Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever
produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing materials that
are the subjects of these cases. None of these cases has reached
resolution through judgment, settlement or otherwise.
While the allegations in these actions directed to the Company
vary, these actions all appear to allege that the transfer of the
Cryovac business as part of the Cryovac transaction was a
fraudulent transfer or gave rise to successor liability.
Under a theory of successor liability, plaintiffs with claims
against Grace and its subsidiaries may attempt to hold the
Company liable for liabilities that arose with respect to
activities conducted prior to the Cryovac transaction by W. R.
Grace & Co.-Conn. or other Grace subsidiaries.
Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation
manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that now serve an array of food, industrial,
medical and consumer applications. Today, the Company maintains
business operations in 51 countries and sells products under
widely recognized brands like Bubble Wrap brand cushioning, Jiffy
protective mailers, Instapak foam-in-place systems and Cryovac
packaging technology.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Still Facing Thundersky Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation's Canadian subsidiary, Sealed Air (Canada)
Co./Cie, since 2004, is a defendant in an asbestos case of
Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No.
CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.
W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. are also named as
defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class
proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by
any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as
a result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing,
manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or
asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac
Transaction.
A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the
Manitoba Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and
specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The
Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069),
seeks the recovery of the cost of insured health services
allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members
of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.
In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and
its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie,
as well as other defendants including Grace and W. R. Grace &
Co.-Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment (except with
respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing
and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in
Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction.
Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. have agreed to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in
respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and
costs, in these actions.
Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation
manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that now serve an array of food, industrial,
medical and consumer applications. Today, the Company maintains
business operations in 51 countries and sells products under
widely recognized brands like Bubble Wrap brand cushioning, Jiffy
protective mailers, Instapak foam-in-place systems and Cryovac
packaging technology.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPERS Action v. Sealed Air Settled in Dec. 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation says that a settlement was fully funded in
December 2009, and a case involving asbestos, with the Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees Retirement System (MPERS) as the
plaintiff, is now closed.
On Sept. 15, 2003, the case of Senn v. Hickey, et al. (Case No.
03-CV-4372) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Newark). This lawsuit sought class action status
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sealed Air securities during the period from March 27, 2000
through July 30, 2002.
The lawsuit named the Company and five current and former
officers and directors of the Company as defendants. The Company
was required to provide indemnification to the other defendants,
and accordingly, the Company's counsel also defended them.
On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff Miles Senn's motion
for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of his choice
of lead counsel. The plaintiff's amended complaint made a number
of allegations against the defendants.
The principal allegations were that during the above period the
defendants materially misled the investing public, artificially
inflated the price of the Company's common stock by publicly
issuing false and misleading statements and violated U.S. GAAP by
failing to properly account and accrue for the Company's
contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from past
operations of W. R. Grace & Co. The plaintiff sought unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.
On March 14, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Senn v.
Hickey, et al. case for failure to state a claim. On Dec. 19,
2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.
The Court determined that the complaint failed adequately to
allege scienter as to the four individual defendants other than
T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with
respect to these four individual defendants, but adequately
alleged scienter as to Mr. Dunphy and the Company.
Mr. Dunphy is a current director of the Company and was formerly
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.
On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the Court
reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the Company's
arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative, that the
Court certifies the matter for interlocutory appeal. On Feb. 13,
2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On
April 7, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on defendants'
reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006, the Court denied
the motion on the ground that issues of fact prevent the Court
from granting a motion to dismiss based on the Company's
arguments other than scienter.
On Oct. 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Sealed Air
securities during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30,
2002. On Nov. 22, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended motion for
class certification, seeking to withdraw as a class
representative and to substitute a new class representative, the
Louisiana MPERS.
On March 26, 2007, the Court entered an order permitting Miles
Senn to withdraw as lead plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be
substituted as lead plaintiff. Consequently, the case is now
properly referred to as MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al.
On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as lead plaintiff, filed a motion to
certify a class of all persons or entities that purchased Sealed
Air securities during the period from March 27, 2000 through July
30, 2002, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby. On July
25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed their memorandum of
law in opposition to MPERS's motion for class certification.
On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy also filed a motion
for reconsideration or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing
that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
require dismissal of MPERS's claims.
In an Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2008, the Court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification. Subsequently, in an
Opinion and Order dated March 14, 2008, the Court denied
defendants' motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss
the complaint premised on the Supreme Court's decisions in
Tellabs and Twombly.
On March 27, 2008, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed a petition
for leave to appeal the district court's class certification
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On May
14, 2008, the Third Circuit denied the petition.
On April 27, 2009, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiff to settle the MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation,
et al. case, subject to documentation and Court approval. The
agreement provided for payment of US$20 million, which would be
substantially funded by the Company's primary and excess
insurance carriers.
On May 27, 2009, the Court entered an Order formally closing the
action without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon
good cause shown within 60 days, to reopen the matter if the
settlement were not consummated.
On Aug. 25, 2009, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary
approval to the settlement and setting a hearing for final
approval of the settlement on Dec. 2, 2009. On Dec. 4, 2009, the
Court entered an Order granting final approval of the settlement.
Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation
manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that now serve an array of food, industrial,
medical and consumer applications. Today, the Company maintains
business operations in 51 countries and sells products under
widely recognized brands like Bubble Wrap brand cushioning, Jiffy
protective mailers, Instapak foam-in-place systems and Cryovac
packaging technology.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Has $53MM A&E Liability at Jan. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc.'s best estimate for its asbestos and
environmental liabilities amounted to US$53 million as of Jan.
30, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed on March
30, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
As of Jan. 30, 2010, the Company estimated its total potential
environmental liabilities to range from US$49 million to US$60
million.
This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to
underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental
conditions involving the Company's former Eckerd drugstore
locations and asbestos removal in connection with approved plans
to renovate or dispose of its facilities.
Headquartered in Plano, Tex., J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is a
department store, catalog, and e-commerce retailer. The Company
runs more than 1,090 JCPenney department stores throughout the
United States and Puerto Rico.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers' A&E Liability at $2.4M at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Millers Holding Corporation's estimated liability for
asbestos and environmental claims is US$2,397,000 at Dec. 31,
2009 and US$2,502,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the
Company's annual report filed on March 31, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Headquartered in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Penn Millers Holding
Corporation provides property and casualty insurance products
designed to meet the insurance needs of certain segments of the
agricultural industry and the needs of middle market commercial
businesses. The Company is licensed in 39 states, but it
currently limits its sales of its insurance products to 33
states.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Has $17.7MM Dec. 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
were US$17,700,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$13,563,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's
annual report filed on March 31, 2010 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$17,646,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$13,509,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.
Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s
tape division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive
tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and
storage, as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning, automotive, and electrical industries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,193 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in
1,193 pending claims involving 1,739 individuals as of Dec. 31,
2009, compared with 1,269 claims as of Dec. 31, 2008.
These claims relate to products of the Company's former Tile
Division, which the Company contributed to subsidiary Congoleum
Corporation in 1993. The claimants allege personal injury or
death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 240 new
claims, 25 settlements, and 291 dismissals. During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 356 new claims, 13
settlements, and 434 dismissals.
The Company has primary and multiple excess layers of insurance
coverage for asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred
to settle claims were about US$5.7 million in 2009 and US$867,000
in 2008 all of which were paid by the Company's umbrella
insurance carriers in 2009 and by the primary insurance carriers
into June 2008 and the umbrella insurance carriers thereafter for
2008, as were the related defense costs.
In June 2008, the Company's primary layer insurance carriers
advised the Company that coverage limits under the February 1996
coverage-in-place agreement had exhausted. In August 2008, the
Company and its applicable first-layer excess umbrella carriers
reached an understanding on the coverage under the Company's
applicable first-layer excess umbrella policies (Umbrella
Coverage), including defense and indemnity obligations,
allocation of claims to specific policies, and other matters.
There was no gap in coverage following the exhaustion of the
primary layer insurance coverage.
In addition to coverage available under the Umbrella Coverage,
the Company has additional excess liability insurance policies
that should provide further coverage if and when limits of
certain policies within the Umbrella Coverage exhaust.
The estimated range of liability for settlement of current claims
pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2015 was
US$17.7 million to US$62 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.
Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s
tape division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive
tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and
storage, as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning, automotive, and electrical industries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Potentially Liable for Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is potentially liable for cleanup at a
former sheet vinyl plant in Lisbon Falls, Maine, in which the
site is owned by Miler Industries, Inc.
The State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection has put
Miller on notice to clean up a dumpsite where there is exposed
asbestos from sheet vinyl waste along with other hazardous
substances.
In September 2005, a lawsuit was brought by Miller against the
Company, which alleged that the Company and one other named
defendant were liable for costs to clean up a dumpsite (Parcel A)
and a second parcel of land (Parcel B), which is alleged to
contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the soil.
The lawsuit, captioned Miller Industries, Inc. v American
Biltrite Inc. et al, was filed on Sept. 22, 2005 in the
Androscoggin Superior Court of Maine.
Miller was seeking indemnification or contribution from the
Company for the clean-up of both parcels of land (together, the
"Maine Sites"). The lawsuit was dismissed by the Superior Court
of Maine on Feb. 3, 2006 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In January 2006, the Company was notified by the Maine DEP that
it is a PRP as to both Parcel A and Parcel B. Subsequently,
Parcel B was named an EPA site.
Prior to the commencement of the lawsuit by Miller, the Company
had been investigating and reviewing the condition of Parcel A
and its potential liability for its share of any clean-up costs.
The Company said it believes, at this time, that the cost of site
investigation, remediation, maintenance and monitoring at the
site will be between about US$1.9 million and US$2.5 million. The
Company has been advised by Miller that the clean-up for Parcel B
has been completed under budget.
The Company has been assessing the potential availability of
insurance coverage for such costs. The Company is not at this
time able to determine what its potential liability will be with
regard to the Maine Sites since the Company has neither accepted
nor negotiated its allocable share of the costs with Miller.
Under the Agreement of The Biltrite Corporation (TBC), TBC is
liable for 37.5 percent of costs these incurred by the Company
for the Maine Sites.
Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite Inc.'s
tape division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive
tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and
storage, as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning, automotive, and electrical industries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10,329 Actions Pending v. RPM Units at Feb. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries had a total of 10,329
active asbestos cases as of Feb. 28, 2010, compared with a total
of 10,281 cases as of Feb. 28, 2009, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on April 8, 2010 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Certain of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries, principally
Bondex International, Inc. , are defendants in various asbestos-
related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state courts with
the vast majority of current claims pending in six states: Texas,
Florida, Maryland, Illinois, Mississippi and Ohio.
These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-
related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-
containing products previously manufactured by the Company's
subsidiaries or others.
The subsidiaries secured dismissals and/or settlements of 644
cases for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010, compared with a total
of 228 cases dismissed and/or settled for the quarter ended
February 28, 2009. The subsidiaries secured dismissals and/or
settlements of 1,301 cases for the nine months ended Feb. 28,
2010, compared with a total of 2,253 cases dismissed and/or
settled for the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2009.
Of the 2,253 cases that were dismissed in the nine months ended
Feb. 28, 2009, 1,420 were non-malignancies or unknown disease
cases that had been maintained on an inactive docket in Ohio and
were administratively dismissed by the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas during the Company's second fiscal quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2008. These claims were dismissed without prejudice and
may be re-filed should the claimants involved be able to
demonstrate disease in accordance with medical criteria laws
established in the State of Ohio.
For the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2010, the subsidiaries made total
cash payments of US$19.9 million relating to asbestos cases,
which included defense-related payments paid during the quarter
of US$7 million, compared to total cash payments of US$19.8
million relating to asbestos cases during the quarter ended Feb.
28, 2009, which included defense-related payments paid during the
quarter of US$6.9 million.
For the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2010, the subsidiaries made
total cash payments of US$57.4 million relating to asbestos
cases, which included defense-related payments of US$22.1
million, compared to total cash payments of US$52.2 million
relating to asbestos cases during the nine months ended Feb. 28,
2009, which included defense-related payments of US$19.7 million.
During the third quarter of fiscal 2009, one payment totaling
US$3.6 million was made to satisfy an adverse judgment in a
previous trial that occurred in calendar 2006 in California. This
payment, which included a significant amount of accrued pre-
judgment interest as required by California law, was made on Dec.
8, 2008, about two and a half years after the adverse verdict and
after all post-trial and appellate remedies had been exhausted.
Excluding defense-related payments, the average payment made to
settle or dismiss a case was about US$20,000 for the quarter
ended Feb. 28, 2010 and US$56,600 for the quarter ended Feb. 28,
2009, and about US$27,100 for the nine months period ended Feb.
28, 2010 and US$14,400 for the nine month period ended Feb. 28,
2009.
Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. is a holding
company that owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings,
sealants, building materials and related services serving both
industrial and consumer markets. The Company's industrial
products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control
coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Final Briefs in Bondex Lawsuit Due on April 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc. says that defendants' final briefs, in an
asbestos case styled Bondex International, Inc. et al. v.
Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company et al., are due on April
28, 2010.
During fiscal 2004, certain of the subsidiaries' third-party
insurers claimed exhaustion of coverage. On July 3, 2003, certain
of the subsidiaries filed the case of Bondex International, Inc.
et al. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-1322, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, for declaratory judgment, breach of contract
and bad faith against these third-party insurers, challenging
their assertion that their policies covering asbestos-related
claims have been exhausted.
The coverage litigation involves insurance coverage for claims
arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos containing products
manufactured by the previous owner of the Bondex tradename before
March 1, 1966.
On March 1, 1966, Republic Powdered Metals Inc. (as it was known
then), purchased the assets and assumed the liabilities of the
previous owner of the Bondex trade name. That previous owner
subsequently dissolved and was never a subsidiary of Republic
Powdered Metals, Bondex, RPM, Inc. or the Company.
Because of the earlier assumption of liabilities, however, Bondex
has historically responded, and must continue to respond, to
lawsuits alleging exposure to these asbestos-containing products.
The Company discovered that the defendant insurance companies in
the coverage litigation had wrongfully used cases alleging
exposure to these pre-1966 products to erode their aggregate
limits.
This conduct, apparently known by the insurance industry based on
discovery conducted to date, was in breach of the insurers'
policy language. Two of the defendant insurers have filed
counterclaims seeking to recoup certain monies should plaintiffs
prevail on their claims.
During the second fiscal quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, plaintiffs
and one of the defendant insurers reached a settlement of US$15
million, the terms of which are confidential by agreement of the
parties. The settling defendant was dismissed from the case.
In 2007, plaintiffs had filed motions for partial summary
judgment against the defendants and defendants had filed motions
for summary judgment against plaintiffs. In addition, plaintiffs
had filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim filed by one of
the defendants.
On Dec. 1, 2008, the court decided the pending motions for
summary judgment and dismissal. The court denied the plaintiffs'
motions for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants'
motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs on a narrow
ground. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss
one defendant's amended counterclaim.
In light of its summary judgment rulings, the court entered
judgment as a matter of law on all remaining claims and
counterclaims, including the counterclaim filed by another
defendant, and dismissed the action. The court also dismissed
certain remaining motions as moot.
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals and will continue to aggressively pursue
their claims on appeal. Certain defendants have filed cross-
appeals.
On Dec. 17, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
briefing schedule. Plaintiffs' first brief on appeal was filed on
Jan. 26, 2010. On Feb. 2, 2010, the Ohio Manufacturers'
Association filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs.
Defendants moved for an extension of time to file their briefs,
which was granted by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a
result, defendants' briefs were filed on March 31, 2010.
Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. is a holding
company that owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings,
sealants, building materials and related services serving both
industrial and consumer markets. The Company's industrial
products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control
coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Records $357.9M Feb. 28 Long-Term Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International, Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
were US$357,891,000 during the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2010,
compared with US$442,549,000 during the nine months ended Feb.
28, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on
April 8, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$75
million during the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2010, compared with
US$65 million during the nine months ended Feb. 28, 2009.
Through nine months, asbestos-related costs were US$57.4 million,
compared to US$52.2 million in the first nine months of fiscal
2009. The total asbestos liability balance was US$432.9 million
at February 28, 2010.
During the third quarter, the Company paid US$19.9 million in
pre-tax asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs, compared to
the US$19.8 million paid in the year-ago third quarter.
Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. is a holding
company that owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings,
sealants, building materials and related services serving both
industrial and consumer markets. The Company's industrial
products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control
coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Progress in Scott v. Chase Since Feb. 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation says that, as of February 2010, there have been
no new developments in Marie Lou Scott's asbestos case as this
Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to the Company.
The Company is one of over 100 defendants in a personal injury
lawsuit, pending in Ohio, which alleges personal injury from
exposure to asbestos contained in certain Chase products.
The case is captioned Marie Lou Scott, Executrix of the Estate of
James T. Scott v. A-Best Products, et al., No. 312901 in the
Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the
Company in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in
September 2005.
The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30,
2007. However, that date had been postponed and no new trial date
has been set.
Based in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corporation makes and sells
specialty tapes, coatings, laminates, and sealants for a
diversity of applications, from wire and cable to construction
and electronics.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jansen Action v. Chase Still in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation says that parties in an asbestos cased filed by
Lois Jansen are currently engaged in discovery, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on April 9, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company was named as one of the defendants in a complaint
filed on June 25, 2009, in a lawsuit captioned Lois Jansen,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Thomas
Jansen v. Beazer East, Inc., et al., No: 09-CV-6248 in the
Milwaukee County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court.
The plaintiff alleges that her husband suffered and died from
malignant mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos in his
workplace. The plaintiff has sued seven alleged manufacturers or
distributors of asbestos-containing products, including Royston
Laboratories (formerly an independent company and now a division
of the Company).
The Company has filed an answer to the claim denying the material
allegations in the complaint.
Based in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corporation makes and sells
specialty tapes, coatings, laminates, and sealants for a
diversity of applications, from wire and cable to construction
and electronics.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DryShips Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
DryShips Inc., may be, from time to time, involved in various
litigation matters, which may include contract disputes, personal
injury claims, environmental claims or proceedings, asbestos and
other toxic tort claims, employment matters, governmental claims
for taxes or duties.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on April 9, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Headquartered in Athens, Greece, DryShips Inc.'s vessels carry
commodities like coal, iron ore, and grain, as well as bauxite,
fertilizers, and steel products. The fleet, which is made up
mainly of Panamax vessels but also includes Capesize and Supramax
units, has an overall capacity of more than 3.1 million
deadweight tons (DWT).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four Hilco Exposure Claims Remain After Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, subsequent to Dec. 31, 2009,
six plaintiffs in asbestos cases filed against Hilco, Inc. have
had their actions dismissed and one plaintiff filed an action,
which results in four remaining plaintiffs in these lawsuits.
The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have
been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County)
by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos. As
of Dec. 31, 2009, there exist nine plaintiffs in these lawsuits
relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or products
containing asbestos, by Hilco.
The Company never sold any asbestos related products.
Of the existing plaintiffs as of Dec. 31, 2009, two filed actions
in 2009, three filed actions in 2007, one filed an action in
2006, one filed an action in 2005, and two filed actions in 2004.
There are 201 other plaintiffs that have had their actions
dismissed and 15 other plaintiffs that have settled as of Dec.
31, 2009 for a total of US$3,360,500. There has been no judgment
against Hilco.
Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp.
distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment
(HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems,
appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies,
primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of
eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Facing Three Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, following dismissed and
settled actions, there exists three asbestos-related plaintiffs
that name Company unit, Universal Supply, Group, Inc., as of Dec.
31, 2009.
Universal was named by 36 plaintiffs. Of these, 11 filed actions
in 2007, six filed actions in 2006, 11 filed actions in 2005,
five filed actions in 2001, one filed an action in 2000, and two
filed actions in 1999.
Thirty plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions
dismissed and, of the total US$3,360,500 of settled actions,
three plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$27,500. No
money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement.
Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp.
distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment
(HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems,
appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies,
primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of
eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Kaanapali, D/C
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and its subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation, are still
defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure
to asbestos.
While there are only a few such cases that name the Company,
there are a substantial number of cases that are pending against
D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against
the Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations
in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on the sale
of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution
business operations primarily in California.
On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American
& Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center. No other purported party was served.
In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and
for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged
that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense
and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of
the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of
the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.
Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights,
and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or
policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not
obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the
amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred
unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and
reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for
defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C has breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim.
In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations
while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement
and Security Agreement with the Company in August 2006, whereby
the Company provided certain advances against a promissory note
delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C
insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the
parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the
amount of US$1.6 million.
Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of
Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7
of Title 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07-
12776. The deadline for filing proofs of claims against D/C with
the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008.
Prior to the deadline, the Company Land filed claims that
aggregated about US$$26.8 million relating to both secured and
unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to the Company. In
addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that
represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of
claim on behalf of about 700 claimants.
Headquartered in Chicago, Kaanapali Land, LLC operates in two
primary business segments: (i) Property and (ii) Agriculture. The
Company operates through a number of subsidiaries, each of which
is owned directly or indirectly by the Company.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10M-$20M Coverage for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coverage
for certain asbestos and environmental claims up to US$10 million
per occurrence and up to US$20 million in the aggregate.
The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of
its properties, including ground water contamination and the
presence of asbestos containing materials. The Company has, in
the past, performed remediation of such environmental matters,
and is not aware of any significant remaining potential liability
relating to these environmental matters.
The Company may be required in the future to perform testing
relating to these matters.
Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Real Estate
Investment Trust has a primary investment focus on retail
shopping malls and strip and power centers located in the eastern
half of the United States, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Its portfolio consists of 54 properties in 13 states, including
38 shopping malls, 13 strip and power centers and three
properties under development.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hubbard Claim v. 74 Companies Filed on March 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Charles Porter Hubbard and
Kelly Jo Hubbard, his wife, vs. Amsted Industries, Inc.; A.W.
Chesterton, Co.; et al was filed on March 29, 2010 in Kanawha
County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.
The Hubbards claim the 74 defendant corporations are responsible
for Mr. Hubbard's mesothelioma, of which he was diagnosed in
January 2010. They seek a trial by jury to resolve all issues
involved in their asbestos-related case.
James A. McKowen, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represent
the Hubbards. Case No. 10-C-593 is assigned to a visiting judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Envt'l. Services to Abate Hazard in Nebr. Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Services Inc., a firm from Norfolk, Nebr., will
remove asbestos from a vacant commercial building at 204 Norris
Avenue in McCook City, Nebr., the McCook Daily Gazette reports.
The Company was the lowest of three proposals the city received
for the work, at US$29,500. Other bids came from Contracting
Specialties Inc. of Omaha for US$56,130 and Great Plains Asbestos
Control of Kearney for US$38,816.
The McCook City Council approved awarding the bid at the regular
council meeting on April 12, 2010.
The structure, at the corner of B Street and Norris Avenue, is
slated for demolition and removing asbestos from the building is
required before that can begin.
The asbestos removal, as well as the demolition, will be paid for
with funds from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Community
Development Block Grant the city was awarded.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Local Indicted on False Inspection Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saverio Todaro, of Queens, N.Y., pleaded guilty to falsifying
lead and asbestos inspection reports for hundreds of structures
around New York City., the Queens Tribune Online reports.
Mr. Todaro, who was a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-
certified lead risk assessor and asbestos air sampling
technician, is the first to be charged with, and plead guilty to,
violations of the EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act.
Dept. of Investigation Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn, said, "Mr.
Todaro was a one-man paper mill churning out phony lead and
asbestos reports. He cared nothing for public safety and profited
by duping government regulators."
Mr. Todaro pleaded guilty to 11 charges, including false
statements, mail fraud and violations of the Toxic Substances
Control Act. He faces a sentence that could include up to 20
years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
The 67-year-old Mr. Todaro, of Richmond Hill, N.Y., ran SAF
Environmental Corp., which offered inspection and testing
services. But since 2001, many of his reports documented
inspections that were never performed.
After City officials found dubious conditions and possible lead
paint violations in residences, Mr. Todaro swooped in to perform
testing. In many cases, instead of actually sending out samples
to be tested, he forged lab reports giving the premises a clean
bill of health. He then billed many of the customers for services
never performed. He often also submitted the false reports to
City agencies.
In a statement before the court, Mr. Todaro admitted guilt and
said, "I knew that my actions were wrong and unlawful, and I am
very sorry for what I did."
Mr. Todaro's violations also reached into asbestos mitigation,
where he submitted reports after the City revoked his inspector's
license in February 2004, backdating his reports to before that
date. He then continued to send customers invoices for his work.
The same behavior applies for Mr. Todaro's handling of hundreds
of asbestos air monitoring reports. He offered up the results to
many tests that never occurred, submitting bogus clearances for
many sites while billing the customers for services never
performed.
Some of his funds came out of City coffers, as part of his work
came from HPD's programs.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Keeling Action v. 25 Firms Filed in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norris Gene Keeling, of Dunbar, W.Va., on March 18, 2010, filed
an asbestos-related lawsuit against 25 defendant corporations in
Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.
Defendants are: A.W. Chesterton Company; Buffalo Pumps, Inc.;
Cleaver-Brooks Company, Inc.; Crane Co.; Dravo Corporation;
Flowserve FSD Corporation; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation;
Gardner Denver, Inc.; Garlock, Inc.; General Electric Company;
Goulds Pumps; Honeywell International, Inc.; IMO Industries,
Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company;
ITT Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Nagle
Pumps, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; United States Steel
Corporation; Rapid American Corporation; Riley Power, Inc.;
Rockwell Automations, Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; and Vimasco
Corporation.
On Oct 28, 2009, Mr. Keeling was diagnosed with lunch cancer,
according to the complaint. He claims he was exposed to asbestos
products of the defendants while working at various job sites
over many years.
Mr. Keeling seeks a trial by jury to resolve all issues in his
asbestos-related case. Victoria Antion, Esq., and Cindy J.
Kiblinger, Esq., represent Mr. Keeling.
Case No. 10-C-519 has been assigned to a visiting judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Messer Case v. 26 Firms Filed March 18 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A couple from Kermit, W.Va., Russell Lee Messer and Melvina
Messer, on March 18, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against 26 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court,
W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.
On Oct. 9, 2008, Mr. Messer was diagnosed with asbestosis,
according to the complaint. The Messers claim the asbestosis was
caused by asbestos dust that was in products and/or buildings Mr.
Messer worked in during his career as a laborer, welder and
construction worker.
Mr. Messer claims he does smoke one pack of cigarettes per day
and has since 1956. The Messers seek a trial by jury to resolve
all issues in the asbestos-related case.
The defendants are 3M Company; A. W. Chesterton Company; Beazer
East, Inc.; Bondex International, Inc.; CertainTeed Corporation;
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Cleaver-Brooks Company, Inc.; Columbia Gas
of Kentucky, Inc.; Flowserve US, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation; Garlock, Inc.; General Electric Company; General
Refractories Company; Georgia Pacific Corporation; Honeywell
International, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Mountaineer Gas Company;
Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Ohio Valley Insulating Company,
Inc.; Riley Power, Inc.; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; UB West
Virginia, Inc.; Uniroyal, Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; and Vimasco
Corporation.
Victoria Antion, Esq., and Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq., represent
the Messers.
Case No. 10-C-520 has been assigned to a visiting judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gill Action Filed March 18 v. 39 Firms in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A couple from Huntington, W.Va., Robert Wesley Gill and Beula
Gill, on March 18, 2010 filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against
39 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The
West Virginia Record reports.
According to the complaint, on July 18, 2008, Mr. Gill was
diagnosed with lung cancer. The Gills claim the defendants are
responsible for Mr. Gill's lung cancer.
The Gills claim the defendants were negligent in manufacturing,
supplying, installing and/or distributing items with asbestos.
The defendants are 3M Company; Aurora Pump Company; A. W.
Chesterton Company; CertainTeed Corporation; Cleaver-Brooks,
Inc.; Columbus McKinnon Corporation; Crane Co.; Crown Cork & Seal
Co., Inc.; Dravo Corporation; Flowserve Corporation; Foseco,
Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; Garlock, Inc.; General
Electric Company; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Honeywell International;
Howden-Buffalo, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial Holdings
Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand; Insul Company, Inc.; ITT
Corporation; J.H. France Refractories; McJunkin Corporation;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Morgan Engineering Systems;
Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Oglebay Norton Company; Ohio
Valley Insulating Company, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Premier
Refractories, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Riley Power,
Inc.; Rockwell Automation, Inc.; Square D Company; Tasco
Insulations, Inc.; UB West Virginia, Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; and
Vimasco Corporation.
The Gills seek a jury trial to resolve all issues in their
asbestos-related case. Victoria Antion, Esq., and Cindy J.
Kiblinger, Esq., represent the Gills.
Case No. 10-C-522 has been assigned to a visiting judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belmont Local Fined $4.4T for Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Carey, a resident of Belmont, Wis., paid nearly US$4,400
in penalties for the illegal burning of asbestos and waste,
THonline.com reports.
The 26-year-old Mr. Carey was cited in Lafayette County Circuit
Court after an investigation by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
The case involves a business structure torn down in Belmont one
year ago and the burning of waste from the demolition.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duffy Action v. Ill. Railroad Filed on March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter V. Duffy, on March 31, 2010, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against Illinois Central Railroad Company in St. Clair County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.
Mr. Duffy worked for the Railroad from 1952 until 1995 as a
fireman and engineer, according to the complaint.
Throughout his work in and around the shops, tracks, roundhouses
and yards in Illinois, Mr. Duffy was exposed to asbestos dust or
fibers, the suit states. Because of this exposure, he claims he
has contracted an asbestos-related disease, has suffered great
pain, extreme nervousness and mental anguish and believes his
illness is permanent in nature.
In his three-count suit, Mr. Duffy seeks a judgment in excess of
US$50,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems
appropriate.
Mr. Duffy is represented by William P. Gavin, Esq., of the Gavin
Law Firm in Belleville, Ill., by Kip A. Harbison, Esq., of
Glasser and Glasser in Norfolk and by Willard J. Moody Jr., Esq.,
of Moody, Strople, Kloeppel and Higginbotham in Portsmouth in
Case No. 10-L-150.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 240 Main Street to Pay $50T for Disposal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
240 Main Street Properties Inc., on April 12, 2010, was fined a
total of US$50,000 in Worcester Superior Court for Massachusetts
State Clean Air Act violations related to the removal of asbestos
from a four-story building at 240 Main St, NEWStelegram.com
reports.
Janet E. Krock, president, treasurer and director of 240 Main
Street Properties, entered guilty pleas on behalf of the
corporation to charges of violating the Clean Air Act in 2007 and
2008 by failing to file notices of asbestos removal with the
state and by improperly disposing of asbestos waste.
Judge James R. Lemire imposed fines totaling US$50,000 against
the corporation as recommended by Assistant Attorney General
Andrew A. Rainer and the corporation's lawyer, Thomas J. Butters,
under a plea agreement.
A warrant was issued for the arrest of Jonathan Gabriel, a
contractor who prosecutors said was hired in September 2007 by
240 Main Street Properties to do demolition work in the building,
after he failed to appear in court for arraignment. Mr. Gabriel
and 240 Main Street Properties were each indicted on March 2010
on two counts of violating the Clean Air Act.
The state Department of Environmental Protection ordered a halt
to demolition work in the long-vacant building in August 2008
after finding that workers employed by Mr. Gabriel, who was doing
business as Hammertime Construction, had not been given proper
training in the removal of asbestos or been provided with
protective equipment.
The DEP investigation also revealed that materials in the
building containing asbestos were not wet down or disposed of in
the proper sealed containers and that no arrangements were made
to have a licensed contractor test the air for asbestos after the
demolition work was completed.
240 Main Street Properties Inc. was identified by prosecutors as
the owner/operator of 240 Main St., a commercial property also
known as the Old State Mutual Building and listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
On April 12, 2010, a summons to appear for arraignment was sent
to Mr. Gabriel at 11 Pond View Way, Northboro, according to court
records.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Records $48.5Mil Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$48,458,000 at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$50,022,000 at
Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's asbestos product liability receivable amounted to
US$1.3 million at both Dec. 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.
Headquartered in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corporation
produces both sheet and tile floor covering products with various
product features, designs and colors.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Cites $667.63Mil Net Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited's net provision for asbestos and
environmental claims and allocated loss adjustment expenses
amounted to US$667,632,000 at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$846,421,000 at Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's gross provision for A&E claims and ALAE amounted to
US$750,972,000 at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$943,970,000 at
Dec. 31, 2008.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had net loss reserves of
US$588.4 million for asbestos-related claims and US$79.2 million
for environmental pollution-related claims.
During 2009, excluding the impact of loss reserves acquired
during the year, the Company's reserves for A&E liabilities
decreased by US$210 million on a gross basis and by US$194.2
million on a net basis.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had 26 separate insurance and/or
reinsurance subsidiaries whose reserves are categorized into
about 202 reserve categories in total, including 28 distinct
asbestos reserving categories and 21 distinct environmental
reserving categories.
Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Enstar Group Limited acquires
and manages insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off and
portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business in run-off, and
to provide management, consulting and other services to the
insurance and reinsurance industry.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crum & Forster Records $356.3M Net Losses, ALAE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.'s net asbestos- and environmental-
related unpaid latent losses and allocated loss adjustment
expenses were US$356.3 million during the year ended Dec. 31,
2009, compared with US$401.1 million during the year ended Dec.
31, 2008.
The Company's gross A&E-related unpaid latent losses and ALAE
were US$458.9 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with US$523.4 million during the year ended Dec. 31,
2008.
Net latent losses incurred in 2009 are net of an insurance
recovery of US$13.8 million associated with an asbestos lawsuit
which the Company settled in 2008. Excluding this recovery, net
latent losses incurred of US$20.5 million were primarily
attributable to increasing claim values and rising legal costs
associated with the asbestos liabilities of one policyholder.
The Company had 356 asbestos policyholders open at Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with 337 policyholder open at Dec. 31, 2008.
Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.
writes numerous lines of business including general liability,
workers' compensation, commercial automobile, property,
commercial multi-peril, accident and health, fidelity and surety,
personal automobile and homeowners.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United America Reserves $51.17M for Losses, LAE
----------------------------------------------------------------
United America Indemnity, Ltd.'s gross reserves for asbestos and
environmental losses and loss adjustment expenses amounted to
US$51,170,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$60,601,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's net reserves for A&E losses and LAE amounted to
US$31,677,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$36,926,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Included in net unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses were
IBNR (incurred but not reported) reserves of US$21.6 million as
of Dec. 31, 2009, US$31.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, and
US$21.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, and case reserves of about
US$10.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, US$5.2 million as of Dec.
31, 2008, and US$8.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2007 for known A&E-
related claims.
In 2009, one of the Company's insurance companies was dismissed
from a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other unrelated
insurance companies. The suit involved issues related to about
3,900 existing asbestos related bodily injury claims and future
claims. The dismissal was the result of a settlement of a
disputed claim related to accident year 1984.
Headquartered in George Town, Cayman Islands, United America
Indemnity, Ltd., a specialty property and casualty insurer,
provides its insurance products across a full distribution
network - binding authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance.
The Company manages the distribution of these products in two
segments: (a) Insurance Operations and (b) Reinsurance
Operations.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ING Groep Records EUR42M Balance for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep N.V. had an outstanding balance of EUR42 million as at
Dec. 31, 2009 (2008: EUR52 million) relating to environmental and
asbestos claims of the insurance operations, according to the
Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on March 18, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In establishing the liability for unpaid claims and claims
adjustment expenses related to asbestos related illness and toxic
waste clean-up, the management considers facts currently known
and current legislation and coverage litigation.
Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, ING Groep N.V.'s
operations are focused on its home Benelux market, as well as the
rest of Europe, Asia/Pacific, and North America. Key products
include life and non-life insurance, pensions, and retirement
services. The Company's banking operations include wholesale and
retail banking and mortgage lending.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Has $25Mil Non-Current Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd's non-current liabilities amounted to US$25 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$50 million as of Dec. 31, 2008,
according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on
March 19, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company's total non-current asbestos liabilities were US$25
million as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13,
2009)
The Company's asbestos provisions and other current liabilities
amounted to US$28 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$4
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.
The Company's Combustion Engineering, Inc. subsidiary (CE) was a
co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming damage for
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A smaller
number of claims were also brought against the Company's former
Lummus subsidiary as well as against other entities of the
Company.
Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended,
were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The CE
plan of reorganization and the Lummus plan of reorganization
(collectively, the Plans) became effective on April 21, 2006 and
Aug. 31, 2006, respectively.
Included in the asbestos provisions are two additional payments
of US$25 million each to the CE Asbestos PI Trust for which the
Company is liable on a contingent basis. One additional payment
of US$25 million is payable in 2010 or 2011 if the Company
attains an earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) margin of
nine percent for 2009 or 14 percent in 2010.
The other payment of US$25 million is payable in 2011 if the
Company attains an EBIT margin of 9.5 percent in 2010. During
2008, the Company recorded both of these contingent payment
obligations as, based on forecasted financial results, it
expected to achieve the target EBIT margins in 2009 and 2010.
If the Company is found by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the
Bankruptcy Court) to have defaulted on its asbestos payment
obligations, the CE Asbestos PI Trust may petition the Bankruptcy
Court to terminate the CE channeling injunction and the
protections afforded by that injunction to the Company and other
entities of the Company, as well as certain other entities,
including Alstom SA.
Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd provides power and
automation technologies to a broad base of utility, industrial,
and commercial customers. Power products include transmission and
distribution components, and turnkey substation systems.
Automation technologies are used to monitor and control equipment
and processes in industrial plants and utilities.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Expends $300,000 for Cleanup at Feb. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Refining Company expended US$300,000 for asbestos
abatement during the six months ended Feb. 28, 2010, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 14, 2010 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Headquartered in Warren, Pa., United Refining Company is a
petroleum refiner and marketer in its primary market area of
Western New York and Northwestern Pennsylvania. Operations are
organized into two business segments: wholesale and retail.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aranda Claim v. 12 Firms Filed April 6 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Augustine Aranda and Patsy Jean Aranda, on April 6, 2010, filed
an asbestos-related lawsuit against 12 defendant corporations in
Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record
reports.
The 12 companies named as defendants include Bayer Cropscience,
Bechtel Corp., CBS Corp., CertainTeed Corp., Crane Co., Dana
Companies, Fluor Enterprises, Fluor Maintenance Services,
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp., Sepco Corp., Treco
Construction Services and Union Carbide Corp.
Mr. Aranda claims he developed a malignant asbestos-related
disease after working around asbestos products during the course
of his work as an electrician, repairman and laborer.
Mr. Aranda has already sued or settled for a non-malignant
asbestos-related disease and now seeks compensation for a
different malignant asbestos-related disease, according to his
complaint.
Mr. Aranda claims he became exposed to asbestos fibers during his
work at the Gulfport Shipyard in Port Arthur from 1965 until 1967
and at the Atlantic Richfield Refinery from 1967 until 1979.
The Arandas seek actual and exemplary damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest at the legal rate and other relief to which
they may be entitled.
Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of Provost
and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont will be representing the
Arandas.
Case No. B186-460 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th
District Court.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardick Widow Wins $2.99M in Compensation Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hardick's widow, Diane Hardick, on April 13, 2010, was
awarded a US$2.99 million asbestos-related award for the wrongful
death of her husband, Robert Hardick, a former U.S. Navy petty
officer who was exposed on Navy ships between the 1950s and the
1970s, the Daily Press reports.
After a 12-day trial in Newport News Circuit Court, a seven-
member jury sided with Mrs. Hardick. Mr. Hardick died of
mesothelioma in March 2009.
Hardick, 69, of Hopkinsville, Ky., was a father of four.
After his Navy career, Mr. Hardick, who died at the age of 69,
became a successful businessman - owning a company that brokered
contracts between large companies and the U.S. military.
Mr. Hardick's death came decades after he breathed in asbestos
fibers at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and while serving on the USS
Newport News, a cruiser built at Newport News Shipbuilding.
The jury's verdict of US$5.98 million will be divided in payment
between two companies - John Crane Inc. and Garlock Sealing
Technologies.
However, Garlock, of Palmyra, N.Y., settled out of court for an
undisclosed amount, meaning only John Crane, of Morton Grove,
Ill., is on the hook to pay its half.
In arriving at the US$5.98 million verdict, the jury awarded US$2
million for pain and suffering; US$1.15 million for the loss
suffered Mrs. Hardick; US$2.5 million for the loss of Mr.
Hardick's future income; and US$327,000 in medical and funeral
expenses.
The sides agreed to the lost income portion of the verdict before
trial - that should the jury side in favor of Mrs. Hardick; that
Mr. Hardick's death translated into US$2.5 million in lost
income.
Of the US$2.99 million portion of the verdict to be borne by
Crane, Hardick's family will get US$1.99 million. Patten, Wornom,
Hatten & Diamonstein will evenly split the remainder - or
US$995,000 - with the Louisville, Ky., law firm that initiated
the suit.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walker Case v. 61 Firms Filed March 18 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit on behalf of Nelson Eugene Walker was
filed against 61 defendant corporations on March 18, 2010 in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.
Debra L. Church and Carol J. Boyd are the co-executrixes of the
Estate of Mr. Walker, according to the complaint. Mr. Walker was
diagnosed with lung cancer on July 31, 2009, and died on Nov. 23,
2009.
Ms. Church and Ms. Boyd claim Mr. Walker was exposed to asbestos
products of the defendants while working at various job sites
over many years.
Ms. Church and Ms. Boyd seek a trial by jury to resolve all
issues in the asbestos-related case. They are being represented
by Victoria Antion, Esq., and Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq.
Case No. 10-C-521 has been assigned to a visiting judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDade Claim Filed v. 58 Firms in Kanawha Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Daily, on behalf of Owens Lee McDade, on March 18, 2010,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 58 defendant
corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.
Mr. McDade was diagnosed with lung cancer in November 2006 and
died on March 22, 2008, according to the complaint.
Ms. Daily claims Mr. McDade was exposed to asbestos products of
the defendants while working at various job sites in West
Virginia and Ohio over many years.
Ms. Daily seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues in the
asbestos-related case. She is being represented by Victoria
Antion, Esq., and Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq.
Case No. 10-C-523 has been assigned to a visiting judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Jury Awards $30M in Three Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Philadelphia awarded a total of US$30 million to three
separate plaintiffs in cases were tried together in March 2010,
LAW.com reports.
However, the plaintiffs' attorneys say their clients will see a
fraction of that money because of prior settlements with the bulk
of the defendants.
The reverse bifurcated trials were held together before Senior
Judge Esther R. Sylvester, with the eight-member jury coming down
with the damages on March 9, 2010 and a finding of liability on
March 23, 2010.
In Nelson v. Crane Co., the jury awarded US$14.5 million to
Darlene Nelson as the executrix of the estate of her husband,
James Nelson, who died at the age of 54 from mesothelioma.
The jurors then found all of the 11 defendants listed on the
verdict sheet liable for the damages. However, three defendants
remained in the case - Crane Co., Hobart and Lincoln. The
companies' shares of the verdict equal US$3.95 million.
In Bell v. Crane Co., the jury awarded US$3.5 million to Larry
Bell II, the administrator of the estate of Larry Bell, who died
at the age of 62 from mesothelioma. The jurors then found the 20
defendants listed on the verdict sheet liable.
Crane Co. remained in the case and will be responsible for one-
twentieth of the verdict, or US$175,000.
In VanTassel v. Alfa Laval Inc., the jurors awarded the estate of
Richard VanTassel US$12 million and then found the 15 defendants
listed on the verdict sheet liable for the damages.
Chris Panatier, Esq., of Simon Eddins & Greenstone in Dallas
represented the VanTassel estate.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Wolgamott's Bid in Metalclad Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland
Division, denied David Wolgamott's motion for disqualification in
asbestos litigation filed against Metalclad Insulation
Corporation.
The case is styled David Wolgamott, Plaintiff v. Asbestos
Defendants, et al., Defendants.
District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong entered judgment in Case
No. C 09-5667 SBA on Feb. 16, 2010.
On Dec. 18, 2008, Mr. Wolgamott filed a civil action against
Metalclad Insulation Corporation. He alleged that he suffers from
asbestosis and asbestos related pleural disease as a result of
being exposed to asbestos. This alleged exposure included
exposure to asbestos fibers from insulation used in the
construction of U.S. Navy ships on which Mr. Wolgamott formerly
worked as a shipfitter and welder.
The insulation with asbestos that allegedly led to Mr.
Wolgamott's asbestosis and asbestos related pleural disease was
provided by Metalclad.
On Dec. 2, 2009, Metalclad removed the instant action to the
Northern District of California. On Dec. 21, 2009, the case was
assigned to this Court. On Dec. 29, 2009, Mr. Wolgamott filed a
Motion to Remand that was scheduled for hearing on April 27,
2010. On Jan. 19, 2010, Mr. Wolgamott filed an Affidavit of
Prejudice and Certificate of Counsel, requesting that this Court
be disqualified and this action be assigned to another judge.
Accordingly, Mr. Wolgamott's motion for disqualification was
denied.
David R. Donadio, Esq., Erin Ann Orzel, Esq., of Brayton Purcell
LLP in Novato, Calif., David Wolgamott.
Felicia Y. Feng, Esq., Lisa Lurline Oberg, Esq., of Mckenna Long
& Aldridge LLP in San Francisco represented, CA, for Defendants.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Ruling in Schaffner's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the ruling of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division,
which granted summary judgment to Crane Co. and Kentile Floors in
asbestos litigation filed by Pamela Schaffner for Charles W.
Schaffner.
Judges Freedberg, Cleland, and Fitzgerald entered judgment in
Case Nos. 1901 EDA 2008 and 1902 EDA 2008 on Jan. 21, 2010.
On June 6, 2006, Mrs. Schaffner commenced this Asbestos Mass Tort
action alleging that Mr. Schaffner developed mesothelioma as a
result of his exposure to asbestos. On July 10, 2006, Mr.
Schaffner died. On Aug. 2, 2006, Mrs. Schaffner opened the Estate
of Mr. Schaffner and substituted the Estate as a party.
On April 16, 2008 and April 22, 2008, Crane and Kentile
individually moved for summary judgment. On May 2, 2008, Mrs.
Schaffner filed her answer to Defendants' motions for summary
judgment.
On May 8, 2008, Defendants filed their reply briefs in support of
their motions for summary judgment. On May 12, 2008, Mrs.
Schaffner filed her sur-reply to Defendants' motions. On May 29,
2008, after review of the motions and responses, this Court
granted Defendants' motions and dismissed with prejudice all
claims against Defendants.
On June 25, 2008, Mrs. Schaffner filed a Notice of Appeal of the
grants of summary judgment. On June 30, 2008, the Court ordered
Mrs. Schaffner to file a Concise Statement of [Errors] Complained
of on Appeal. On July 11, 2008, in response to this Court's
order, Mrs. Schaffner filed a Statement of [Errors] Complained of
on appeal.
The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
*********
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 * * *