/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100806.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 6, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 154
Headlines
ALABAMA: State Officials Accused of Violating Voting Rights Act
BP PLC: Faces $10 Billion Suit Over Benzene Leak in Texas City
CEPHALON INC: Defends Suits in Pennsylvania over ACTIQ Drug
CEPHALON INC: Defends Complaint Over GABITRIL and PROVIGIL Drugs
CEPHALON INC: Defends Provigil Antitrust Suits in Pennsylvania
CORDISH COMPANY: Faces Race Discrimination Class Suit
DELTA AIR: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Baggage Fee Suit
ELAN CORP: Faces Class Action in New York Over Call Options
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued for Using Retired NFL Players in Video Game
ENBRIDGE INC: Faces Second Class Action Lawsuit Over Oil Leak
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Plaintiffs File Certification Motion in MDL
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Missouri Court Dismisses Securities Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal Ruling
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Amburgy" Class Suit Deemed Closed
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defends "Recording Fees" Suit in Missouri
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Discovery in NJ "Recording Fees" Suit Ongoing
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Two Affiliates Face Suits on "Notary Fees"
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defends Suit in California over "Escrow Fees"
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Suit in Hawaii
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Nevada
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Petition for Review Pending in Supreme Court
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Units Still in Mediation to Resolve Two Suits
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Settles Securities Class Suits for $22.5MM
GRANT & EISENHOFER: Faces Class Suit Over Tyco Settlement
J. EZRA MERKIN: Asks Judge to Dismiss Madoff Feeder-Fund Lawsuit
MIAMI BREAKER: Recalls 43,600 "Square D" Circuit Breakers
PACIFIC PREMIER: Bank Unit Continues to Defend Suit in MO
PFIZER INC: Wins Ruling Denying Neurontin Class-Action Request
PRAXAIR INC: Defends Various Medical Monitoring Suits
RHODE ISLAND: 20 Law Professors Back ACLU in Truancy Class Suit
SBC ILLINOIS: Accused of Unlawfully Collecting Late Fees
SOUTHWEST WATER: Has Deal to Settle Merger-Related Suits
STURM RUGER: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint Pending
SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed
SUPERVALU INC: Defends Consolidated Suit in Minnesota
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 29
TOYOTA MOTOR: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Defective Car Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Master Consolidated Complaint Filed in RICO Suit
UNITED FIRE: Certification Ruling Appeal Pending in High Court
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Settles N.J. Class Suit for $80-Mil.
WADDELL & REED: Defends FLSA-Violations Suit in California
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: NSP-Minnesota Faces EnviroTech Remediation Claim
ASBESTOS ALERT: Ron Couch Building Penalized for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. Cliffs Natural, Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 90,100 Open Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Has $5MM Expense for Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich, Units Still Party to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Has 6,400 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Party to Claims in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 31,000 Cases Ongoing v. Dana Holding at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Cites $58M June 30 Insurance Asset
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3,500 Actions Pending v. Tyco Int'l. at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Facing 507 Exposure Actions at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chem. Unit Still Party to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Martin Still Party Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ladish Co. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10 Lorillard Filter Actions Scheduled for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11,100 Cases Pending v. Mallinckrodt at June 25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Facing 18,000 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner's Bid in N.J. Case Denied on July 8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Involved in Continental Case in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds American Units Party to Parsons Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Unit Still Involved in Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $11M Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Involved in Unresolved Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Facing 28 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Cites $12MM Net Costs at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Records $47MM Decrease in Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Faces 10,300 Tort Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife's Unit Receives 2,076 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Liabilities Still at $20.58MM at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Supply Faces 22,500 Claims in 8 States
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 104,865 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Involved in Coverage Action in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Cites $28.9MM Charges at July 4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Faces 1,214 Cases at July 4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Leslie Bankruptcy Slated for Aug. 9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Has $1.6MM Remaining Indemnity at July 4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spence, Hoke Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Remains Party to Aqua-Chem Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Cites $24.13MM June 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Powers' Remand Bid Affirmed in Case v. Rockwell
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reconsideration Motion in Celotex Action Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Umphrey, Coon Case on Legal Fees Ended July 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 12 Cases Filed During June 14-20 in Madison Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Suits Filed in Madison County From June 7-11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Suits Filed in Madison County From June 1-4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lowe Pleads Guilty to False Training in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Cites $724M Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Still Facing 550 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Still Party to Aaron Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. NL Industries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corporation Faced 58,920 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sussex Judge's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justice Ministry Cites GBP5T Payment to Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oct. 14 Hearing Set in Action v. Pinski et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R.I. Contractors Fined $25T for NESHAP Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belcoat Corp. Claim Trial Scheduled for Nov. 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Omaha Police HQ Needs $20MM to Remove Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing in Masciarelli Case Slated for Aug. 24
*********
ALABAMA: State Officials Accused of Violating Voting Rights Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that Gov.
Bob Riley's warrantless raids of electronic bingo casinos in Macon
and Greene counties discriminate against the counties' mostly
black residents by effectively nullifying their votes to allow the
bingo machines, according to a federal class action.
More than 31 residents of Macon and Greene counties say they
approved constitutional amendments "establishing lawful regimes"
for electronic bingo operations. These amendments made the
sheriff of each county the "regulator and enforcer" of the bingo
halls, according to the class action.
But the named plaintiffs, all of whom are black, say Gov. Riley
has "implemented a de facto replacement of the sheriffs" with
Mobile district attorney John Tyson, whom Riley appointed as
commander of his gambling task force.
The voters say Gov. Riley and Mr. Tyson sent state troopers to
Macon and Greene counties to conduct "non-judicial, warrantless
police raids" on electronic bingo halls, for the purpose of
"threatening and intimidating" them.
They say the raids discriminate by "denying African Americans the
ability to exercise home rule in their respective counties," in
keeping with the state's "long history of utilizing the state
Constitution and the power of central state government to deny
African Americans in Black Belt counties . . . the ability to
govern themselves and to make and to enforce laws of their
choice."
The last time a sitting governor used an executive order to
authorize state troopers to conduct armed raids was in 1963, the
lawsuit claims, when Gov. George Wallace tried to stop black
children from attending public schools in Alabama.
Class members accuse Riley and Tyson of violating the Voting
Rights Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act. They demand an order barring
state officials from conducting any more police raids on bingo
operations in their counties.
A copy of the Complaint in Johnson, et al. v. Riley, et al., Case
No. 10-cv-02067 (W.D. Ala.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/02/Bingo%20raids.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward Still, Esq.
EDWARD STILL LAW FIRM
2112 11th Ave. South, Suite 541
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-320-2882
E-mail: still@votelaw.com
- and -
James U. Blacksher, Esq.
P.O. Box 636
Birmingham AL 35201
Telephone: 205-591-7238
E-mail: jblacksher@ns.sympatico.ca
- and -
Fred D. Gray, Esq.
GRAY, LANGFORD, SAPP, MCGOWAN, GRAY & NATHANSON
P.O. Box 830239
Tuskegee, AL 36083-0239
Telephone: 334-727-4830
E-mail: fgray@glsmgn.com
BP PLC: Faces $10 Billion Suit Over Benzene Leak in Texas City
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erwin Seba, writing for Reuters, reports that more than 2,000
people filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court on Tuesday
seeking over $10 billion in punitive damages from BP Plc for 40
days of excess pollution from the company's Texas City, Texas,
refinery, according to court documents.
"In order to avoid losing the profit from shutting down an
operating unit . . . (BP) instead spewed thousands of pounds of
one of the most deadly and nastiest carcinogens into the
atmosphere, exposing unsuspecting onsite workers and nearby
residents," the lawsuit said.
BP reported to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that
over 500,000 pounds of chemicals was released into the air between
April 6 and May 16, when a hydrocracking unit at the refinery was
malfunctioning.
BP also reported that an estimated 17,000 pounds of benzene was
released during the malfunction in April and May in the
hydrocracking unit called an ultracracker.
The Texas Attorney General's office is investigating whether the
release should be handled as a criminal or only a regulatory
matter.
A BP spokesman said monitoring equipment at the refinery did not
show elevated levels of pollution during the malfunction.
"Based on our understanding of the facts and circumstances, BP
does not believe there is any basis to pay claims in connection
with this event," said BP spokesman Michael Marr in a statement.
"BP is not taking or paying such claims."
"Each day, more than 400 pounds of benzene, a known human
carcinogen, were released; a number 40 times the state reportable
levels," according to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
of the Southern District of Texas in Houston.
Houston attorney Tony Buzbee, who filed the case, said the damages
were meant to punish the energy giant for its operation of the
Texas City refinery, which is the nation's third-largest.
"BP averages 200, sometimes 400, releases yearly," Mr. Buzbee said
in a statement. "The authorities have been unable to force BP to
follow our emission laws and the regulatory penalties are
insufficient. Enough is enough."
The 465,000 barrel per day (bpd) Texas City refinery was the site
of an explosion in March 2005 that killed 15 workers and injured
180 others.
Several of the plaintiffs identified in Tuesday's lawsuit work at
the refinery.
The lawsuit comes as BP faces federal Congressional and criminal
investigations related to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico from
its blown-out Macondo oil well.
The company took a $32 billion charge in the second quarter for
costs related to the spill.
Last year, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
slapped BP with a record $87.4 million in fines for safety
violations at the refinery and two-thirds of the penalty was due
to failure to fix problems found in 2005 after the explosion.
BP has said it spent $1 billion to fix the problems found after
the explosion. The company paid out more than $2 billion to settle
claims from the blast. Last year, BP pleaded guilty to federal
criminal charges in the explosion and paid a $50 million fine. The
company was also placed on probation for three years.
In 2005, BP paid OSHA a $21.3 million fine for violations found in
the blast. (Editing by Gary Hill)
Plaintiffs' lawyer may be reached at:
Tony Buzbee, Esq.
THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM
JPMorgan Chase Tower
600 Travis, Suite 7300
Houston Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 223-5393
(800) 992-5393
Facsimile: (713) 223-5909
Email: info@txattorneys.com
CEPHALON INC: Defends Suits in Pennsylvania over ACTIQ Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to defend putative class action
complaints pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in connection with its ACTIQ drug,
according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
In late 2007, the company was served with a series of putative
class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of entities that claim
to have reimbursed for prescriptions of ACTIQ for uses outside of
the product's approved label in non-cancer patients. The
complaints allege violations of various state consumer protection
laws, as well as the violation of the common law of unjust
enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in actual,
punitive and/or treble damages, with interest, and/or disgorgement
of profits.
In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint that also alleges violations of RICO and conspiracy to
violate RICO. The RICO allegations were dismissed with prejudice
in May 2009.
No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is a global
biopharmaceutical company dedicated to discovering, developing and
bringing to market medications to improve the quality of life of
individuals around the world. Since its inception in 1987,
Cephalon has brought first-in-class and best-in-class medicines to
patients in several therapeutic areas. Cephalon has the
distinction of being one of the world's fastest-growing
biopharmaceutical companies, now among the Fortune 1000 and a
member of the S&P 500 Index, employing approximately 4,000 people
worldwide. The company sells numerous branded and generic
products around the world. In total, Cephalon sells more than 150
products in nearly 100 countries.
CEPHALON INC: Defends Complaint Over GABITRIL and PROVIGIL Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to defend a putative class action
complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania relating to its GABITRIL and PROVIGIL
products, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
In February 2009, the company was served with a additional
putative class action complaint filed on behalf of two health and
welfare trust funds that claim to have reimbursed for
prescriptions of GABITRIL and PROVIGIL for uses outside the
products approved labels.
The complaint alleges violations of RICO and the common law of
unjust enrichment and seeks an unspecified amount of money in
actual, punitive and/or treble damages, with interest.
No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is a global
biopharmaceutical company dedicated to discovering, developing and
bringing to market medications to improve the quality of life of
individuals around the world. Since its inception in 1987,
Cephalon has brought first-in-class and best-in-class medicines to
patients in several therapeutic areas. Cephalon has the
distinction of being one of the world's fastest-growing
biopharmaceutical companies, now among the Fortune 1000 and a
member of the S&P 500 Index, employing approximately 4,000 people
worldwide. The company sells numerous branded and generic
products around the world. In total, Cephalon sells more than 150
products in nearly 100 countries.
CEPHALON INC: Defends Provigil Antitrust Suits in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to defend antitrust cases pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
connection with the settlement agreements entered into with four
generic manufacturers for its Provigil drug, according to the
company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
Numerous private antitrust complaints have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, each
naming Cephalon, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Ranbaxy Laboratories
Limited, as co-defendants and claiming, among other things, that
the PROVIGIL settlements violate the antitrust laws of the United
States and, in some cases, certain state laws.
These actions have been consolidated into a complaint on behalf of
a class of direct purchasers of PROVIGIL and a separate complaint
on behalf of a class of consumers and other indirect purchasers of
PROVIGIL.
A separate complaint was filed by an indirect purchaser of
PROVIGIL in September 2007.
The plaintiffs in all of these actions are seeking monetary
damages and/or equitable relief.
In addition, in December 2009, the company entered a tolling
agreement with the Attorneys General of Arkansas, California,
Florida, New York and Pennsylvania to suspend the running of the
statute of limitations to any claims or causes of action relating
to the company's PROVIGIL settlements pending the resolution of
the U.S. Federal Trade Commission litigation.
Separately, in June 2006, Apotex, Inc., a subsequent abbreviated
new drug application filer seeking approval from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration of a generic form of modafinil, filed suit
against the company, also in the same Court, alleging similar
violations of antitrust laws and state law. Apotex asserts that
the PROVIGIL settlement agreements improperly prevent it from
obtaining FDA approval of its ANDA, and seeks monetary and
equitable remedies.
In August 2009, the direct and indirect purchasers, Apotex and the
FTC filed amended complaints and, subsequently, the company filed
motions to dismiss each amended complaint. The direct and
indirect purchasers, Apotex and the FTC have filed responses to
the company's motions to dismiss.
In March 2010, the Court denied the company's motions to dismiss
each amended complaint.
The EDPA has scheduled a trial for the Apotex matter to begin in
March 2011.
Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is a global
biopharmaceutical company dedicated to discovering, developing and
bringing to market medications to improve the quality of life of
individuals around the world. Since its inception in 1987,
Cephalon has brought first-in-class and best-in-class medicines to
patients in several therapeutic areas. Cephalon has the
distinction of being one of the world's fastest-growing
biopharmaceutical companies, now among the Fortune 1000 and a
member of the S&P 500 Index, employing approximately 4,000 people
worldwide. The company sells numerous branded and generic
products around the world. In total, Cephalon sells more than 150
products in nearly 100 countries.
CORDISH COMPANY: Faces Race Discrimination Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit for racial discrimination against the
developers of the Kansas City Power & Light entertainment
district, the Cordish Company, has been filed on behalf of four
local African-American men. Plaintiffs Kirk Proctor, Rob Jackson,
Jerome Porter, and Marcus McMiller will be represented in this
matter by attorney Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr. of the Williamson
Law Firm, LLC. The lawsuit calls for the defendants to pay
punitive damages to a class in an amount of no less than
$20,000,000 and to enjoin the defendant from discriminating
against minorities.
The class action lawsuit alleges that African-American males have
been denied admission on multiple occasions to the KCLive! venue
because of their race. The lawsuit further alleges that the
defendants used a "dress code" as a tool to exclude minorities.
Defendants often claim that minorities dress is in violation of
its dress code despite the fact that said individuals are actually
in compliance. While denying access to African-American males,
Caucasian males in similar or identical attire were permitted to
enter.
Mr. Williamson believes that the dress code adopted by the Cordish
Company and its affiliates has been primarily enforced against
minorities with the underlying intent of maintaining a mostly
Caucasian patronage. On one occasion, an African-American security
guard for the KCLive! venue was asked why the guards treated
people the way they do and he replied "they don't want blacks in
there, it aint for us". Additionally, the complaint includes
allegations of physical assault against the plaintiffs that also
took place at the hands of security personnel employed by the
Cordish Company.
An example of the discriminatory behavior described in the
complaint against the Cordish Company includes an instance during
which one of the plaintiffs in this case was asked to leave the
KCLive! area after being told that the shorts he was wearing were
too long. As he was being escorted out by a security guard, he
noticed a Caucasian male who was wearing the same shorts. He then
asked the guard what the difference was between himself and the
other gentleman, and the guard replied "he's in and you're not".
Williamson Law Firm, LLC -- http://www.thewilliamsonfirm.com/--
is class-action and civil-litigation law firm based in Kansas
City, Missouri with an office in Wichita, KS. Among recent
successes, WLF has secured verdicts for their clients in over 90%
of cases taken to trial and has not lost a civil verdict to date.
A copy of the Complaint in Proctor, et al. v. The Cordish
Companies, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00745 (W.D. Mo.), is available
at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/02/Long%20Shirts.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
WILLIAMSON LAW FIRM, LLC
218 Delaware St., Suite 207
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: 816-256-4150
Facsimile: 913-535-0736
E-mail: l.williamson@williamsonfirm.com
DELTA AIR: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Baggage Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Delta Air Lines and AirTran Airways lost
their bid to dismiss a class-action lawsuit charging that they
colluded to set a baggage fee as a federal judge in Atlanta ruled
the carriers can be sued.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten, in an August 2 ruling,
dismissed plaintiffs' claims that Delta, the current airline
industry leader, and AirTran engaged in "attempted monopolization"
but said a claim alleging conspiracy should proceed.
The case dates back to 2009, when Delta and AirTran were sued by
customers charging the airlines colluded to charge passengers for
a first checked bag. The suit alleged that AirTran's chief
executive invited Delta to initiate a baggage fee during an April
2008 earnings conference call by indicating that AirTran would
follow with its own charge.
In February 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended class action lawsuit
in the case in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. Delta and AirTran
had filed motions to dismiss the claims in March 2010.
"Because the allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint contain
sufficient factual specificity to establish an unlawful
conspiracy, dismissal would be improper," Judge Batten said in
ruling on the conspiracy claim in the 46-page decision this week.
The two carriers are rivals in the Atlanta market, and Judge
Batten's ruling noted that Delta "has consistently matched"
AirTran's low prices, including on routes to and from the city's
Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.
Judge Batten added however, that the plaintiffs' complaint had its
weaknesses.
He said a Delta explanation that it imposed a first-bag fee
because merger partner Northwest Airlines already had one was a
"potentially legitimate and lawful" justification. Delta acquired
Northwest in October 2008.
"We will not comment on the litigation other than to say it is
notable that the decision recognizes that the harmonization of
Delta and Northwest policies, as a result of the merger, would be
a valid business justification for Delta's actions in adjusting
its baggage fees," Delta spokesman Susan Elliott said in an
emailed statement.
"We are very pleased with the judge's decision to dismiss the
monopoly parts of the case, and we are confident that we'll
prevail on the remaining parts," AirTran spokesman Christopher
White said on Tuesday.
AirTran currently charges $15 for a first checked bag, while Delta
charges $23 to $25 for a first bag, depending on whether it is
checked online or at the airport.
The case is In Re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Action File No. 1:09-md-2089-TCB (N.D. Ga.).
ELAN CORP: Faces Class Action in New York Over Call Options
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed Tuesday that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers of Elan Corporation, plc's CALL OPTIONS during the
period between June 17, 2008 and July 29, 2008.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Yelena Trepetin of
Brower Piven at 410/415-6616, or via e-mail at
trepetin@browerpiven.com If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.browerpiven.com/ Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.
The complaint charges Elan and certain of its officers and
directors and Pfizer, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Wyeth,
Inc., with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Elan
is a neuroscience-based technology company. Wyeth is a wholly-
owned operating subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc. Pfizer is a
pharmaceutical company.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statement about bapineuzumab,
a drug Elan was developing in association with Wyeth for the
treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Specifically, defendants failed
to disclose unfavorable results from a Phase 2 clinical study of
bapineuzumab that Elan and Wyeth conducted. When those results
were finally disclosed, the price of Elan's American Depository
Receipts plunged from $33.75 to $19.63 in one day.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Elan's call options during the Class Period. The plaintiff is
represented by Brower Piven, whose attorneys have combined
experience litigating securities and class action cases of over 40
years.
Plaintiff's lawyer may be reached at:
Yelena Trepetin, Esq.
BROWER PIVEN, P.C.
1925 Old Valley Road
Stevenson, MD 21153
Telephone: (410) 415-6616
Facsimile: (4100 685-1300
Email: trepetin@browerpiven.com
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued for Using Retired NFL Players in Video Game
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Grill, writing for the Atlanta Video Game News Examiner,
reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in a U.S.
District Court in California by former Bengals and Bucs RB Tony
Davis on the behalf of around 6,000 retired NFL players against
Electronic Arts over Madden NFL 09. The suit claims that EA
"knowingly and intentionally" used player likenesses in such a way
that licensing fees could be avoided.
The suit further alleges that Electronic Arts was aware of the
illegality of the scheme because they stopped using it for Madden
2010.
The lawsuit asks for a recovery of statutory damages, actual
damages and punitive damages and for Electronic Arts to give up
all profits obtained by using the player's likenesses without
their authorization.
The suit states: "EA's commercial exploitation of retired NFL
players is both blatant and prolific, as the 2009 edition of the
Madden NFL video game contained over 140 historic teams containing
likenesses of thousands of retired NFL players. EA was fully
aware that its use of the retired players' likenesses was without
authorization and that a license fee was needed. The only
significant detail that EA changes from the real-life retired NFL
players is their jersey number. Despite EA's scrambling of the
retired NFL players' numbers, the games are designed so that
consumers of the Madden NFL video game franchise will have no
difficulty identifying who the historic players are."
A lawsuit is currently moving ahead concerning the use of NCAA
player likenesses in video games.
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that lead
plaintiff Michael Davis, a former running back for the Cincinnati
Bengals and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, claims EA swiped his and
other players' personas for the game, which raked in $400 million
last year. The Madden 2009 game allows players to pit "historical
teams" against one another.
Mr. Davis says EA tried to avoid paying him for using his likeness
in the 1979 Buccaneers team by altering his jersey number and
field position, though gamers can still recognize him by his name,
age, height and weight.
A copy of the Complaint in Davis v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Case
No. 10-cv-03328 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/02/Madden.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Henri, Esq.
THOMAS WHITELAW & TYLER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94111-4037
Telephone: 415-820-0400
E-mail: bhenri@twtlaw.com
- and -
Joseph E. Thomas, Esq.
Michael I. Katz, Esq.
THOMAS WHITELAW & TYLER LLP
18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 230
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 949-679-6400
E-mail: jthomas@twtlaw.com
mkatz@twtlaw.com
- and -
Austin Tighe, Esq.
FEAZELL & TIGHE LLP
6618 Sitio Del Rio Blvd.
Building C-101
Austin, TX 78730
Telephone: 512-372-8100
E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com
ENBRIDGE INC: Faces Second Class Action Lawsuit Over Oil Leak
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Enquirer newspaper in Michigan reports that a second class-
action lawsuit has been filed against Enbridge Inc. after last
week's Kalamazoo River oil spill.
The Rochester-based Miller Law Firm on Monday filed a lawsuit
against the company in federal court. The six-plaintiff class-
action suit accused Enbridge of everything from trespassing to
nuisance to negligence in the 819,000-gallon oil leak reported
July 26 in Fredonia Township. The leak carried the crude down
Talmadge Creek to the Kalamazoo River across Calhoun County.
The Miller suit does not specify a dollar figure, but asks for a
judgment "in whatever amount plaintiffs and class members are
found to be entitled," plus other costs. The lawsuit asks for a
jury trial.
Earlier this week, a separate lawsuit was filed on behalf of at
least two plaintiffs by a Bloomfield Hills attorney.
Enbridge President Patrick Daniel has said residents do not need
to sue to be compensated for property damage. The company already
has begun processing claims and will soon set up a storefront in
Battle Creek where damage claims can be filed.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Plaintiffs File Certification Motion in MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a Multi-District Litigation against Express
Scripts, Inc. filed a motion for class certification seeking to
certify all self-funded ERISA employee benefit plans, according to
the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation on April 29, 2005,
transferred a number of previously disclosed cases to the Eastern
District of Missouri for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings including:
-- Minshew v. Express Scripts (Case No. 02-cv-1503,
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri) (filed Dec. 12, 2001);
-- Lynch v. National Prescription Administrators, et al.
(Case No. 03-cv-1303, U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York) (filed Feb. 26, 2003);
-- Mixon v. Express Scripts, Inc. (Ccase No. 03-cv-1519,
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri) (filed Oct. 23, 2003);
-- Wagner et al. v. Express Scripts (Case No. 04-cv-01018
(WHP), U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York) (filed Dec. 31, 2003);
-- Scheuerman, et al v. Express Scripts (Case No.
04-cv-0626 (FIS) (RFT), U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York) (filed April 27, 2004);
-- Correction Officers' Benevolent Association of the City
of New York, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc. (Case
No. 04-cv-7098 (WHP), U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York) (filed Aug. 5, 2004);
-- United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers
Midwest Health Benefits Fund, et al v. National
Prescription Administrators, Inc., et al. (Case No.
04-cv-7472, U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York) (filed Sept. 21, 2004);
-- Central Laborers' Welfare Fund, et al v. Express
Scripts, Inc., et al. (Case No. B04-1002240, U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois)
(filed Sept. 27, 2004);
-- New England Health Care Employees Welfare Fund (Brown)
v. Express Scripts, Inc. (Case No. 05-cv-1081, U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri)
(filed Oct. 28, 2004);
-- Local 153 Health Fund, et al. v. Express Scripts Inc.
and ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc. (Case No.
B05-1004036, U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri) (filed May 27, 2005); and
-- Brynien, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc. and ESI Mail
Services, Inc. (Case No. 08-cv-323 (GLS/DRH), U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York)
(filed Feb. 18, 2008) was transferred in 2008.
The plaintiffs assert that certain of the company's business
practices, including those relating to its contracts with
pharmaceutical manufacturers for retrospective discounts on
pharmaceuticals and those related to the company's retail pharmacy
network contracts, constitute violations of various legal
obligations including fiduciary duties under the Federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, common law fiduciary duties, state
common law, state consumer protection statutes, breach of
contract, and deceptive trade practices.
The putative classes consist of both ERISA and non-ERISA health
benefit plans as well as beneficiaries. The various complaints
seek money damages and injunctive relief.
On July 30, 2008, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
of certain of the ERISA plans for which the company was the PBM
was denied by the Court in its entirety. Additionally, the
company's motion for partial summary judgment in the Minshew and
Brown cases on the issue of the company's ERISA fiduciary status
was granted in part.
The Court found that the company was not an ERISA fiduciary with
respect to MAC (generic drug) pricing, selecting the source for
AWP (Average Wholesale Price) pricing, establishing formularies
and negotiating rebates, or interest earned on rebates before the
payment of the contracted client share. The Court, in partially
granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, found that the
company was an ERISA fiduciary only with respect to the
calculation of certain amounts due to clients under a therapeutic
substitution program that is no longer in effect.
On Dec. 18, 2009, ESI filed a motion for partial summary judgment
on the remaining ERISA claims and breach of contract claims on the
cases brought against ESI on behalf of ERISA plans. The company
is awaiting the Court's decision on this motion.
On Feb. 16, 2010, in accordance with the Schedule under the case
management order, Plaintiffs in the Correction Officers and Lynch
matters filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that National
Prescription Administrators (NPA) was a fiduciary to the
Plaintiffs and breached its fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also filed
a class certification motion on behalf of self-funded non-ERISA
plans residing in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania for which
NPA was PBM and which used the NPASelect Formulary from Jan. 1,
1996 through April 13, 2002.
On July 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification seeking to certify all self-funded ERISA employee
benefit plans for which NPA, at least initially, served as the
ERISA Plans' PBM, and which utilized the NPA Select Formulary at
any time from Jan. 1, 1996 through April 13, 2002.
Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- one of
the largest pharmacy benefit management companies in North
America, is leading the way toward creating better health and
value for patients through ConsumerologySM, the advanced
application of the behavioral sciences to healthcare. This
approach is helping millions of members realize greater healthcare
outcomes and lowering cost by assisting in influencing their
behavior. Headquartered in St. Louis, Express Scripts provides
integrated PBM services including network-pharmacy claims
processing, home delivery services, specialty benefit management,
benefit-design consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary
management, and medical and drug data analysis services. The
company also distributes a full range of biopharmaceutical
products and provides extensive cost-management and patient-care
services.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc.'s motion to decertify the class in the
matter North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts,
Civil Action No. CV-03-B-2696-NE, remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, according to
the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
The suit was filed Oct. 1, 2003, and purports to be a class action
against the company on behalf of independent pharmacies within the
United States.
The complaint alleges that certain of the company's business
practices violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C Section 1,
et. seq. The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages (including
treble damages) and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on
March 3, 2006.
A motion filed by the plaintiffs in an antitrust matter against
Medco and Merck in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation requesting transfer of
this case and others to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
MDL treatment was granted on Aug. 24, 2006.
The company filed a motion to decertify the class on Jan. 16,
2007, and it has been fully briefed and argued.
The company is awaiting the Court's decision on such motion.
Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- one of
the largest pharmacy benefit management companies in North
America, is leading the way toward creating better health and
value for patients through ConsumerologySM, the advanced
application of the behavioral sciences to healthcare. This
approach is helping millions of members realize greater healthcare
outcomes and lowering cost by assisting in influencing their
behavior. Headquartered in St. Louis, Express Scripts provides
integrated PBM services including network-pharmacy claims
processing, home delivery services, specialty benefit management,
benefit-design consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary
management, and medical and drug data analysis services. The
company also distributes a full range of biopharmaceutical
products and provides extensive cost-management and patient-care
services.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Missouri Court Dismisses Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
granted Express Scripts, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter In re
Express Scripts Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-1009,
according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
On Sept. 13, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
complaint alleges that Express Scripts and certain of the
company's officers violated federal securities law. The complaint
alleges that the company failed to disclose certain alleged
improper business practices and issued false and misleading
financial statements and that certain officers violated insider
trading laws.
The complaint is brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's
stock during the period Oct. 29, 2003 to Aug. 3, 2004.
The complaint requests unspecified compensatory damages, equitable
relief and attorney's fees.
On Sept. 13, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
that Express Scripts and certain of its officers violated federal
securities laws.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 28, 2005 and
supplemental briefing was completed in January 2009.
On June 30, 2010, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissed the action.
The company's response in opposition to class certification is due
in early 2011.
Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- one of
the largest pharmacy benefit management companies in North
America, is leading the way toward creating better health and
value for patients through ConsumerologySM, the advanced
application of the behavioral sciences to healthcare. This
approach is helping millions of members realize greater healthcare
outcomes and lowering cost by assisting in influencing their
behavior. Headquartered in St. Louis, Express Scripts provides
integrated PBM services including network-pharmacy claims
processing, home delivery services, specialty benefit management,
benefit-design consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary
management, and medical and drug data analysis services. The
company also distributes a full range of biopharmaceutical
products and provides extensive cost-management and patient-care
services.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has upheld the
ruling dismissing the mater Pearson's Pharmacy, Inc. and Cam
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Altadena Pharmacy v. Express Scripts,
Inc., Case No. 3:06-CV-00073-WKW, according to the company's July
28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama on Jan. 26, 2006.
On Feb. 15, 2006, an amended complaint alleging a class action on
behalf of all pharmacies reimbursed based upon average wholesale
price was filed. The complaint alleges that the company failed to
properly reimburse pharmacies for filling prescriptions.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and injunctive
relief. On March 31, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint.
On June 7, 2007, the court dismissed the claims for fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent suppression and unjust enrichment,
leaving only a breach of contract claim. On June 19, 2009,
Express Scripts filed a motion for summary judgment on the
remaining claims.
On Oct. 29, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in Express
Scripts' favor, disposing of all claims. Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on Nov. 17, 2009.
The Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal on May 10, 2010.
Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- one of
the largest pharmacy benefit management companies in North
America, is leading the way toward creating better health and
value for patients through ConsumerologySM, the advanced
application of the behavioral sciences to healthcare. This
approach is helping millions of members realize greater healthcare
outcomes and lowering cost by assisting in influencing their
behavior. Headquartered in St. Louis, Express Scripts provides
integrated PBM services including network-pharmacy claims
processing, home delivery services, specialty benefit management,
benefit-design consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary
management, and medical and drug data analysis services. The
company also distributes a full range of biopharmaceutical
products and provides extensive cost-management and patient-care
services.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Amburgy" Class Suit Deemed Closed
---------------------------------------------------
The matter Amburgy v. Express Scripts, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-705,
is considered closed after the plaintiff's time to appeal the
dismissal lapsed, according to Express Scripts' July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
On May 8, 2009, Amburgy filed a class action lawsuit over ESI's
reported data incident in October 2008 alleging that ESI failed to
take adequate security measures to protect against theft of the
information.
Plaintiff's claims include negligence, breach of contract, and
violations of state data breach notification laws. Plaintiff
sought to certify a nationwide class of all persons whose
information was compromised and sought unspecified monetary
damages and injunctive relief.
ESI's motion to dismiss was granted on Nov. 23, 2009, plaintiff's
time to appeal has lapsed, and the company says it considered this
case closed.
Express Scripts, Inc. -- http://www.express-scripts.com/-- one of
the largest pharmacy benefit management companies in North
America, is leading the way toward creating better health and
value for patients through ConsumerologySM, the advanced
application of the behavioral sciences to healthcare. This
approach is helping millions of members realize greater healthcare
outcomes and lowering cost by assisting in influencing their
behavior. Headquartered in St. Louis, Express Scripts provides
integrated PBM services including network-pharmacy claims
processing, home delivery services, specialty benefit management,
benefit-design consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary
management, and medical and drug data analysis services. The
company also distributes a full range of biopharmaceutical
products and provides extensive cost-management and patient-care
services.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defends "Recording Fees" Suit in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., continues to defend a class
action in Missouri relating to its alleged overcharges for
government recording fees, according to the company's July 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
There are class actions pending against Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., Fidelity National Title Group and several title
insurance companies, including Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation, Transnation Title Insurance Company (which has merged
into Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation), United Title Company,
Inc., and Ticor Title Insurance Company, alleging overcharges for
government recording fees.
These cases allege that the named defendant companies charged fees
in excess of the fees charged by government entities in closing
transactions and charged for documents releasing encumbrances that
were never recorded by the company. These suits seek various
remedies including compensatory damages, prejudgment interest,
punitive damages and attorney's fees.
One case filed in Missouri in the summer of 2008 but removed to
the Federal District Court in Missouri, seeks to certify a
national class against Chicago Title Insurance Company. Although
the Federal District Court in Kansas refused to certify a national
class previously filed by the same plaintiff's attorneys, the
Missouri suit seeks to overcome that Court's objections to
certification.
In September 2009, the company filed a motion to deny class
certification.
And, although similar cases filed in Indiana were decertified by
the appellate court and trial court, the Missouri courts have
refused to decertify a case now pending, which has been assigned
to a judge.
On July 9, 2010, the court ordered Chicago Title to perform an
accounting for all class members to determine the amount of the
overcharges. Chicago Title will vigorously challenge the order.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services. FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters -- Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title -- that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States. FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business. FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS. FNF
is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Discovery in NJ "Recording Fees" Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a class action against Fidelity National Financial,
Inc., filed in New Jersey in connection with the company's alleged
overcharging for government recording fees is ongoing, according
to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.
There are class actions pending against Fidelity National
Financial, Inc., Fidelity National Title Group and several title
insurance companies, including Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation, Transnation Title Insurance Company (which has merged
into Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation), United Title Company,
Inc., and Ticor Title Insurance Company, alleging overcharges for
government recording fees.
These cases allege that the named defendant companies charged fees
in excess of the fees charged by government entities in closing
transactions and charged for documents releasing encumbrances that
were never recorded by the company. These suits seek various
remedies including compensatory damages, prejudgment interest,
punitive damages and attorney's fees.
On Jan. 26, 2009, a recording fee class action was filed in New
Jersey and the parties are engaging in discovery.
No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services. FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters -- Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title -- that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States. FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business. FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS. FNF
is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Two Affiliates Face Suits on "Notary Fees"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Title Company and Chicago Title Company face two
class actions alleging that they overcharged for notary fees,
according to Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
The suits were filed on Feb. 26, 2010, in state court in
California.
The companies have answered and are engaged in discovery.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services. FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters -- Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title -- that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States. FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business. FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS. FNF
is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defends Suit in California over "Escrow Fees"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Title Company, Fidelity National Title Company
of California and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, faces
a class action filed in state court in California, according to
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
The suit was filed on May 28, 2010, and alleges that the companies
charge more than their filed rates for title and escrow services.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services. FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters -- Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title -- that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States. FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business. FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS. FNF
is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Suit in Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., continues to defend a class
action alleging it wrongfully released funds from escrow.
A class action has been filed in state court in Hawaii against
Fidelity National Title and Escrow of Hawaii, Inc., alleging the
company wrongfully released funds from escrow thereby engaging in
unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of state statute.
The suit seeks damages, treble damages, prejudgment interest,
attorney's fees and costs.
The company has answered the complaint and is investigating the
allegations informally and through discovery.
No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services. FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters -- Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title -- that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States. FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business. FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS. FNF
is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., continues to defend an amended
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.
A class action filed in District Court in Nevada has been amended
to allege a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty in
handling escrows against Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
and Fidelity National Title Agency of Nevada, Inc.,
The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
attorney's fees.
The company is investigating the allegations and has moved for a
more definite statement of the allegations against it, which was
opposed by plaintiffs and is now fully briefed and submitted.
No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services. FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters -- Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title -- that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States. FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business. FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS. FNF
is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Petition for Review Pending in Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s petition for review of the
decision granting class certification in a complaint alleging
violation of the Illinois Title Insurance Act and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, is pending in the Illinois Supreme Court,
according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
Two class action complaints are pending in the Illinois state
court against Chicago Title Insurance Company, Ticor Title
Insurance Company, Chicago Title and Trust Company and Fidelity
National Financial, Inc. alleging the companies violated the
Illinois Title Insurance Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and have been unjustly enriched through the practice of paying
Illinois attorney's agency fees.
The complaints allege the payments are in exchange for the
referral of business and the attorneys do not perform any "core
title services".
The motions to certify the classes were denied on May 26, 2009,
but the plaintiffs appealed. The appeal was fully briefed and the
court heard oral arguments on Feb. 25, 2010.
On April 15, 2010, the Illinois District Court of Appeal issued an
order reversing the lower court and directing that class
certification be granted.
The companies have petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court for
review of the decision. The petition is fully briefed and under
submission.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services. FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters -- Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title -- that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States. FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business. FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS. FNF
is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Units Still in Mediation to Resolve Two Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to work
with the mediator to resolve two putative class actions in
California alleging failure to pay overtime, according to the
company's July 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
On Dec. 3, 2007, a former title officer in California filed a
putative class action suit against Lawyers Title Company, and
LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.
The lawsuits were later amended to include Commonwealth Land Title
Company and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company as
defendants in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles
County. A similar putative class action was filed against the
Defendants by former escrow officers in California, in the same
court on Dec. 12, 2007.
The plaintiffs' complaints in both lawsuits allege failure to pay
overtime and other related violations of the California Labor
Code, as well as unfair business practices under the California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 on behalf of all
current and former California title and escrow officers.
The underlying basis for both lawsuits is an alleged
misclassification of title and escrow officers as "exempt"
employees for purposes of the California Labor Code, which
resulted in a failure to pay overtime and provide for required
meal and rest breaks.
Although such employees were reclassified as "non-exempt"
beginning on Jan. 1, 2006, the complaints allege similar
violations of the California Labor Code even after that date for
alleged "off-the-clock" work.
The plaintiffs' complaints in both cases demand an unspecified
amount of back wages, statutory penalties, declaratory and
injunctive relief, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.
The plaintiffs have yet to file a motion for class certification,
as the parties have agreed to mediation.
A mediation date was scheduled for April 28, 2010.
The parties mediated the case on April 28, 2010, but did not
settle.
However, the parties continue to work with the mediator toward a
resolution.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. -- http://www.fnf.com/--
provides title insurance, mortgage services, specialty insurance,
claims management services and information services. FNF is the
nation's largest title insurance company through its title
insurance underwriters -- Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title,
Commonwealth Land Title, Lawyers Title, Ticor Title, Security
Union Title and Alamo Title -- that collectively issue more title
insurance policies than any other title company in the United
States. FNF also provides flood insurance, personal lines
insurance and home warranty insurance through its specialty
insurance business. FNF also is a leading provider of outsourced
claims management services to large corporate and public sector
entities through its minority-owned subsidiary, Sedgwick CMS. FNF
is also a leading information services company in the human
resource, retail and transportation markets through another
minority-owned subsidiary, Ceridian Corporation.
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Settles Securities Class Suits for $22.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gildan Activewear Inc. has entered into an agreement to settle all
proposed securities class action proceedings filed in 2008 before
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Quebec Superior Court
and the United States District for the Southern District of New
York. The proposed litigation related to, among other things, the
Company's April 29, 2008 announcement revising its fiscal 2008
earnings guidance.
The settlement will be entirely funded by the Company's insurance
policies and will have no impact on the Company's earnings or cash
flows. The settlement agreement provides for a total settlement
amount of US$22.5 million for distribution to eligible class
members in accordance with a plan of allocation to be approved by
the Courts, net of court approved expenses and attorneys' fees for
class counsel.
The settlement agreement acknowledges that the Company and its
senior officers deny all of the claims and charges of wrongdoing,
liability or violation of laws.
The settlement agreement is conditional upon approval of the
settlement by each of the Courts. Dates have not yet been set for
settlement approval hearings. The settlement agreement is also
subject to the Company's option to terminate the agreement if opt-
outs by shareholders eligible to participate in the settlement
exceed a certain pre-determined threshold.
Gildan is a vertically-integrated marketer and manufacturer of
quality branded basic apparel. The Company is the leading supplier
of activewear for the screenprint channel in the U.S. and Canada.
It is also a leading supplier to this market in Europe, and is
establishing a growing presence in Mexico and the Asia-Pacific
region. The Company sells T-shirts, sport shirts and fleece in
large quantities to wholesale distributors as undecorated
"blanks", which are subsequently decorated by screenprinters with
designs and logos. Consumers ultimately purchase the Company's
products, with the Gildan label, in venues such as sports,
entertainment and corporate events, and travel and tourism
destinations. The Company's products are also utilized for work
uniforms and other end-uses to convey individual, group and team
identity. The Company is also a leading supplier of private label
and Gildan branded socks primarily sold to mass-market retailers.
In addition, Gildan has an objective to become a significant
supplier of men's and boys' underwear and undecorated activewear
products to mass-market retailers in North America.
GRANT & EISENHOFER: Faces Class Suit Over Tyco Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action lawsuit has been commenced against a law
firm that represented Tyco investors in securities litigation that
produced a $3.2 billion settlement in 2007.
Grant & Eisenhofer "stole hundreds of millions of dollars from
their clients in 2007" with a fee award of almost $500 million,
investor Richard Gielata said in a complaint filed in federal
court in Wilmington, Delaware.
The complaint alleges that Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., and Jay W.
Eisenhofer, Esq., entered into a fee agreement in 2004 that
limited any fee request to 7.8% of the $3.2 billion settlement.
However, Mr. Eisenhofer and his firm instead requested a fee of
14.5% in 2007 and omitted the fee agreement from their fee
request. Unaware of the fee agreement, the court awarded more
than $460 million to the plaintiffs' lawyers, over $215 million
more than the maximum fee under the undisclosed agreement.
The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and legal malpractice. Class action litigators
Joseph N. Gielata and Thomas C. Cronin intend to seek
certification of the class described in the complaint. Joseph
Gielata is the son of Richard Gielata.
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes.com, reports that Joseph Gielata
argued that shareholders are entitled to the $200 million
difference.
Grant & Eisenhofer, in a statement, said it will "vigorously and
vehemently deny" the allegations by Joseph Gielata, including the
central allegation that there was an agreement providing for a
lower fee.
Joseph Gielata worked for Grant & Eisenhofer from 2002 to 2004 and
was later reprimanded by the Delaware Supreme Court in connection
with a fraudulent scheme involving PayPal. The lawsuit, Grant &
Eisenhofer said, is "just another one of Mr. Gielata's schemes."
Mr. Gielata, who also previously worked for Milberg Weiss,
acknowledged the reprimand but said he is still a licensed
attorney in Delaware.
Plaintiff's lawyer may be reached at:
Joseph N. Gielata, Esq.
JOSEPH N. GIELATA LLC
2115 Concord Pike, Suite 205
Wilmington, Delaware 19803
Telephone: (302) 507-4400
Email: attorney@gielatalaw.com
The defendants may be reached at:
Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8505
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
Email: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
J. EZRA MERKIN: Asks Judge to Dismiss Madoff Feeder-Fund Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that hedge fund
manager J. Ezra Merkin asked a U.S. federal judge to dismiss an
investor class-action lawsuit accusing him of recklessly funneling
millions of dollars to the now-imprisoned Ponzi schemer Bernard
Madoff.
In a filing late Monday in Manhattan federal court, Mr. Merkin
said the plaintiffs, who invested in his funds, cannot show that
he and his Gabriel Capital Corp. investment advisory affiliate
"knew about, much less participated in, the Madoff fraud."
Rejecting the contention that he should have performed better due
diligence, Mr. Merkin said he had no motive to commit fraud, and
himself lost more than $100 million with Mr. Madoff.
"Prior to December 11, 2008, [Mr.] Madoff had been a well-
respected money manager and broker dealer," Mr. Merkin's lawyers
said, referring to the date Mr. Madoff was arrested.
Nothing in the complaint "gives rise to any inference, let alone
the requisite strong inference, that the defendants acted with a
fraudulent intent," the lawyers added.
Mr. Madoff once had control over substantially all assets in Mr.
Merkin's Ascot fund and smaller amounts of his Gabriel and Ariel
funds.
In April 2009, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued Mr.
Merkin, accusing him of steering $2.4 billion of investor money to
Mr. Madoff without their knowledge.
The investors in the class-action lawsuit are seeking compensatory
and punitive damages, among other remedies. Lead plaintiffs
include New York Law School, individual investor Scott Berrie and
the Nephrology Associates PC Pension Plan.
Karin Fisch, Esq., a lawyer for the law school and Berrie,
declined to comment. Gregory Nespole, Esq., a lawyer for the
pension plan, did not immediately return calls seeking a comment.
Neil Steiner, Esq., a lawyer for Mr. Merkin, declined to comment.
BDO USA LLP and affiliates, which audited the Merkin funds, on
Friday also asked for dismissal of the lawsuit.
Investors and regulators have targeted Mr. Merkin since Mr. Madoff
was arrested over his estimated $65 billion Ponzi scheme.
Mort Zuckerman, the real estate investor and publisher of the
Daily News in New York, also sued Mr. Merkin for about $40 million
of Madoff-related losses.
Mr. Madoff, 72, pleaded guilty to running the Ponzi scheme in
March 2009. He is serving a 150-year sentence in a North Carolina
federal prison.
The case is In re: J. Ezra Merkin and BDO Seidman Securities
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 08-10922.
Representing J. Ezra Merkin:
Neil A. Steiner, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-6797
Telephone: 212-698-3822
Facsimile: 212-698-3599
Email: neil.steiner@dechert.com
Representing New York Law School and Scott Berrie:
Karin E. Fisch, Esq.
ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS LLP
212 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212-889-3700
Facsimile: 212-684-5191
Email: kfisch@abbeyspanier.com
Representing Nephrology Associates PC Pension Plan:
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212-545-4657
Facsimile: 212-545-4758
Email: nespole@whafh.com
MIAMI BREAKER: Recalls 43,600 "Square D" Circuit Breakers
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Miami Breaker Inc., of Miami, Fla., announced a voluntary recall
of about 43,600 counterfeit "Square D" Circuit Breakers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.
The recalled circuit breakers labeled "Square D" or "SQD" have
been determined to be counterfeit by Square D and can fail to trip
when they are overloaded, posing a fire hazard to consumers.
No injuries or incidents have been reported.
This recall involves the counterfeit circuit breakers are marked
as Square D in the QO series. The models are QO115 (about 7,800
units), QO120 (about 26,300 units), QO130 (about 3,200 units),
QO215 (about 350 units), QO220 (about 720 units), QO230 (about
1,780 units), QO240 (about 1,130 units), QO250 (about 1,150 units)
and QO260 (about 1,150 units). Genuine Square D QO breakers have
the following: (1) the amp rating written on the handle in white
paint on the front of the breaker, (2) the Square D insignia
molded onto the breaker side; (3) a yellow chromate clip with half
of the top of the clip visible. If your breaker does not match
this description, it could be counterfeit. Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10749.html
The recalled products were sold through electrical product
distributors and wholesalers nationwide from March 2005 through
July 2006. Single pole breakers sold for between $3 and $4,
double pole breakers were sold for between $8 and $9.
Consumers should immediately contact Miami Breaker to determine if
their circuit breaker is counterfeit and if necessary, arrange a
free inspection and replacement. Consumers can contact MBI at
(800) 941-1112 between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. Consumers can e-mail the firm at
info@miamibreaker.com
PACIFIC PREMIER: Bank Unit Continues to Defend Suit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Pacific
Premier Bank, continues to defend a class action lawsuit alleging
violation of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act, according to
the company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.
In February 2004, the Bank was named in a class action lawsuit
titled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al", alleging various
violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act by charging and
receiving fees and costs that were either wholly prohibited by or
in excess of that allowed by the Act relating to origination fees,
interest rates, and other charges.
The class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay
County, Missouri. The complaint seeks restitution of all
improperly collected charges, interest thereon, the right to
rescind the mortgage loans or a right to offset any illegal
collected charges and interest against the principal amounts due
on the loans and punitive damages.
In March 2005, the Bank's motion for dismissal due to limitations
was denied by the trial court without comment. The Bank's
"preemption" motion was denied in August 2006. The Bank has
answered the plaintiffs' complaint and the parties have exchanged
and answered initial discovery requests. When the record is more
fully developed, the Bank intends to raise the limitations issue
again in the form of a motion for summary judgment.
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.ppbi.com/-- is a bank
holding company that operates through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Pacific Premier Bank. The Bank is a state-chartered commercial
bank. Through its branches and its Web site at www.ppbi.net, the
Bank offers an array of deposit products and services for both
businesses and consumer customers, including checking, money
market and savings accounts, cash management services, electronic
banking and online bill payment. It offers an array of loan
products, such as commercial business loans, lines of credit,
commercial real estate loans, the United Sates Small Business
Administration loans, residential home loans and home equity
loans. The Bank provides banking services within its targeted
markets in Southern California to businesses, including the owners
and employees of those businesses, professionals, real estate
investors and non-profit organizations, as well as consumers in
the communities served by it.
PFIZER INC: Wins Ruling Denying Neurontin Class-Action Request
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Pfizer Inc.,
the world's biggest drugmaker, persuaded a Missouri judge to deny
class-action status for a lawsuit alleging the company illegally
marketed its Neurontin epilepsy medicine.
Judge Donald L. McCullin in St. Louis refused on July 27 to allow
Missouri Neurontin buyers to combine claims that Pfizer sold the
drug for unapproved uses and misled users about its effectiveness,
according to state-court filings. Two consumers sought to have
their case certified as a class action to recover money spent on
Neurontin prescriptions.
"The evidence in the record shows Neurontin is effective for
treatment of many conditions," Judge McCullin wrote in his
13-page decision. "The court cannot certify this putative class
because it appears from the record that it would include more than
a small number of uninjured individuals."
Pfizer, based in New York, faces at least 400 lawsuits accusing it
of illegally promoting Neurontin. In March, a Boston jury ordered
Pfizer to pay more than $140 million in damages to an insurer over
its marketing practices in connection with the drug.
The company also has settled at least two suits alleging the drug
played a role in users' suicides, paying almost $400,000 in one of
the accords, people familiar with the deals said earlier this
year.
'Far From Over'
Pfizer is pleased with Judge McCullin's decision, spokesman Chris
Loder said in an e-mailed statement. The judge found the case
wasn't suitable for class-action treatment because potential class
members had different types of claims depending on how the drug
worked for them.
"We think this ruling is subject to challenge," Gerald Meunier, a
New Orleans-based lawyer representing Missouri plaintiffs
Elizabeth Judy and Stephen Brown, said in a phone interview. "This
case is far from over."
Some Neurontin users contend that Pfizer's Warner-Lambert unit
intentionally violated federal law by marketing the epilepsy drug
for more than a dozen medical conditions that weren't approved by
U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulators.
Warner-Lambert officials pleaded guilty in 2004 to criminal
charges filed by the U.S. Justice Department and paid a $430
million fine over allegations the company illegally marketed
Neurontin. Pfizer bought Warner-Lambert for $120 billion in 2000.
Consumer Law
In the Missouri case, lawyers for Judy and Brown argued that
Neurontin purchasers overpaid for the drug based on the company's
illegal marketing tactics and deserved to able to join together in
a group suit to recoup that money.
They also argued Neurontin wasn't effective for the non- approved
uses that Warner-Lambert targeted in its marketing effort. The
plaintiffs brought the case under a Missouri consumer statute,
Meunier said.
The Missouri case is Judy v. Pfizer Inc., 042-01946-02, Missouri
Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit (St. Louis).
Plaintiffs' lawyer may be reached at:
Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & WARSHAUER
2800 Energy Centre
1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 522-2304 or 800-489-2304
Facsimile: (504) 528-9973
Email: gmeunier@gainsben.com
PRAXAIR INC: Defends Various Medical Monitoring Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Praxair, Inc., is a defendant in various class actions for medical
monitoring in connection to the alleged exposure to manganese
contained in welding fumes.
Claims brought by welders alleging that exposure to manganese
contained in welding fumes caused neurological injury. Praxair
has never manufactured welding consumables. Such products were
manufactured prior to 1985 by a predecessor company of Praxair.
As of June 30, 2010, Praxair was a co-defendant with many other
companies in lawsuits alleging personal injury caused by manganese
contained in welding fumes. There were a total of 611 individual
claimants in these cases. The cases were pending in several state
and federal courts. The federal cases have been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and, in most instances, punitive damages. In the
past, Praxair has either been dismissed from the cases with no
payment or has settled a few cases for nominal amounts. These
claims raise numerous, individual issues that make them generally
unsuited for class action status.
Separately, various class actions for medical monitoring have been
proposed but none have been certified.
No further information was disclosed in the company's July 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.
Praxair, Inc. -- http://www.praxair.com/-- is the largest
industrial gases company in North and South America, and one of
the largest worldwide, with 2009 sales of $9 billion. The company
produces, sells and distributes atmospheric and process gases, and
high-performance surface coatings. Praxair products, services and
technologies bring productivity and environmental benefits to a
wide variety of industries, including aerospace, chemicals, food
and beverage, electronics, energy, healthcare, manufacturing,
metals and others.
RHODE ISLAND: 20 Law Professors Back ACLU in Truancy Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Arditi, staff writer for The Providence Journal, reports that
20 professors of legal ethics from law schools around the country
are named in a brief filed in Superior Court Monday which accuses
former Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. and the
magistrates who run the state's Truancy Court program of
attempting to stifle the free-speech rights of two lawyers
representing the American Civil Liberties Union and its Rhode
Island affiliate.
Lawyers representing Jeremiah and the magistrates have asked a
Rhode Island Superior Court judge to bar the ACLU's New York
lawyers from participating in a class-action lawsuit the ACLU
filed for their clients because the ACLU lawyers made public
statements against the Truancy Court during a news conference last
March.
The event was to publicize the ACLU's class-action lawsuit against
Jeremiah and the magistrates who run the Truancy Court program for
allegedly violating the civil rights of the students and their
families.
The ACLU lawyers' comments were printed in The Providence Journal
and posted on ACLU's blog.
On Monday, 20 professors from law schools -- Yale Law School, New
York University School of Law and Georgetown Law School among them
-- joined in support of the ACLU's free-speech argument in a 16-
page "friend of the court" brief arguing in support of the free-
speech rights of the ACLU lawyers.
"Providing information to the citizenry about the operation of the
judicial system is essential," the memorandum reads, and the
lawyers were attempting to "educate the public about an important
but often overlooked role of government: the exercise of legal
authority over juveniles."
The comments included one from Robin Dahlberg, Esq., a lawyer
representing the ACLU, who said that "pushing kids into the
juvenile justice system is not the way to help at-risk youth
graduate from high school, and, in fact, only increases the
likelihood that they will ultimately end up in the criminal
justice system." The other ACLU lawyer, Yelena Konanova, posted
entries to the ACLU's blog describing the experiences of two of
the plaintiffs in the Truancy Court.
The blog post also stated that the lawsuit is part of the ACLU's
Racial Justice Program's efforts to "end the school-to-prison
pipeline -- a national trend wherein children, and
disproportionately children of color, are funneled out of the
public school system and into the juvenile and criminal justice
systems."
Lawyers for both sides appeared at an August 3, 2010, hearing
before Superior Court Judge William Carnes on a motion by the
magistrates seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed.
ACLU's counsel may be reached at:
Robin Dahlberg, Esq.
Yelena Konanova, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad St.
New York, New York
Telephone: (212) 549-2666
SBC ILLINOIS: Accused of Unlawfully Collecting Late Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Cahnman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. SBC Illinois, d/b/a AT&T Illinois d/b/a Illinois Bell, Case No.
2010-CH-32892 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 30, 2010), alleges
that Bell's billing practices during the period from July 1, 2002,
until February 28, 2010, violated the Illinois Administrative
Code, specifically by omitting a dated postmark on the bill
envelope, and seeks an order that Bell disgorge all late fees
collected during that period.
The complaint states that Bell's bills, as presented to customers
from July 2, 2002, through February 28, 2010, did not display a
dated postmark on the bill envelope as then required by the
Illinois Administrative Code, 83 Ill. Adm. Code Chap. I, Sec.
735.160(a). Mr. Cahnman explains that compliance with Sec.
735.160 was required for the [company] to charge late fees, as
Bell could not set a past due date without complying with it.
Mr. Cahnman states that Bell intentionally removed the postmark
without first seeking a waiver from the Illinois Commerce
Commission. On February 28, 2010, the language of Sec. 735.160
was changed to eliminate the postmark requirement. The complaint
says that the revenue Bell obtained illegally by charging late
fees from 2002 to 2007 amounts to $76,996,140.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
Robert P. DeWitte, Esq.
KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 606-0500
E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
robert@krislovlaw.com
SOUTHWEST WATER: Has Deal to Settle Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
SouthWest Water Company has entered into an agreement to settle
the suits arising out of its planned merger with SW Merger
Acquisition, according to the company's July 28, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On March 3, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated as of March 2, 2010, with SW Merger Acquisition
Corp. and SW Merger Sub Corp., whereby institutional investors
advised by J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Water Asset
Management, LLC agreed to acquire the company.
Following that announcement, seven purported class action lawsuits
related to the proposed merger contemplated by the merger
agreement were filed against the company, some or all of its
directors, Parent, Merger Sub, J.P. Morgan Investment Management
Inc., J.P. Morgan and WAM in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, and the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
The complaints are substantially similar and allege, among other
things, that the merger is the product of a flawed process and
that the consideration to be paid to our stockholders in the
merger would be unfair and inadequate. The complaints further
allege, among other things, that our officers and directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, taking
actions designed to deter higher offers from other potential
acquirers and failing to maximize the value of our stock for the
benefit of our stockholders. The complaints further allege that
Parent, Merger Sub, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., J.P.
Morgan and WAM aided and abetted the actions of our officers and
directors in breaching their fiduciary duties. The complaints
seek, among other relief, an injunction preventing consummation of
the merger, an order rescinding the merger or any of the terms of
the merger to the extent already implemented, costs and
disbursements of the lawsuits, including attorneys' and experts'
fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and
proper.
Although the company and the other defendants believe that the
actions are entirely without merit and that they have valid
defenses to all claims, on July 27, 2010, the company and the
other defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of these actions.
In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum
of understanding, the company agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed merger, some of which are
contained in the proxy statement. The company says that while it
believes that no such supplemental disclosure is required, it has
agreed to do this to avoid the risk of the putative stockholder
class actions delaying or adversely affecting the merger and to
minimize the expense of defending these actions. The company's
agreement to make these additional disclosures does not constitute
an acknowledgement that it is required under any applicable state
or federal law, rule or regulation and is not in any way an
admission of any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the
plaintiffs' allegations and the company's directors and officers
maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied with their
fiduciary and other legal duties.
Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel
to the plaintiffs, the memorandum of understanding contemplates
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement which
will provide, among other things, for the conditional
certification of a settlement class. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
Court approval following notice to our stockholders. In the event
that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the California Superior Court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the Court,
it will resolve and release on behalf of the class all claims in
all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the proposed merger, the merger agreement, and any
disclosure made in connection therewith and a dismissal with
prejudice will be filed.
The plaintiffs in the actions filed in Delaware and the United
States District Court will then seek dismissal of their respective
actions with prejudice.
SouthWest Water Company -- http://www.swwc.com/-- provides a
broad range of services, including water production, treatment and
distribution; wastewater collection and treatment; utility billing
and collection; utility infrastructure construction management;
and public works services. The company owns regulated public
utilities and also serves cities, utility districts and private
companies under contract.
STURM RUGER: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended complaint remains pending, according to the company's July
28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2010.
In addition, on Aug. 18, 2009, the company was served with a
complaint captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf
of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.
Inc., et al. pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between April 23, 2007 and Oct. 29, 2007.
On Oct. 9, 2009, the company waived service of a complaint
captioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut. This matter is based upon the same facts and basic
allegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund
litigation.
On Oct. 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the two actions was
filed by counsel for the Steamfitters.
On Jan. 11, 2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two
matters. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 11,
2010.
The defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
on April 26, 2010 and plaintiffs filed a response on June 18,
2010.
Defendants then filed a reply in support of the motion on July 19,
2010. Oral argument is scheduled for November 3, 2010.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. - http://www.ruger.com/-- was
founded in 1949 and is one of the nation's leading manufacturers
of high-quality firearms for the commercial sporting market.
Sturm, Ruger is headquartered in Southport, CT, with manufacturing
facilities located in Newport, NH and Prescott, AZ.
SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against SUPERVALU Inc., filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin remains
stayed.
In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC,
Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc., Carolina
Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services.
The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief. All proceedings have been stayed in the case
pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former
officers of IOS.
No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 19, 2010.
SUPERVALU Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is one of the
largest companies in the U.S. grocery channel with estimated
annual sales of $38 billion. SUPERVALU serves customers across
the United States through a network of approximately 4,270 stores
composed of approximately 1,160 traditional retail stores,
including 820 in-store pharmacies; 1,190 hard-discount stores, of
which 870 are operated by licensee owners; and 1,920 independent
stores serviced primarily by the company's traditional food
distribution business. SUPERVALU has approximately 154,000
employees.
SUPERVALU INC: Defends Consolidated Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
SUPERVALU Inc., continues to defend a consolidated suit pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. was a conspiracy to
restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the
Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New
England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions.
The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities
that the company and C&S purchased from the other. Plaintiffs are
seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.
No further updates were reported in the company's July 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 19, 2010.
SUPERVALU Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is one of the
largest companies in the U.S. grocery channel with estimated
annual sales of $38 billion. SUPERVALU serves customers across
the United States through a network of approximately 4,270 stores
composed of approximately 1,160 traditional retail stores,
including 820 in-store pharmacies; 1,190 hard-discount stores, of
which 870 are operated by licensee owners; and 1,920 independent
stores serviced primarily by the company's traditional food
distribution business. SUPERVALU has approximately 154,000
employees.
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 29
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
IN RE TETRA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ) Civil Action No. 4:08-CV-00965
SECURITIES LITIGATION ) JUDGE KEITH P. ELLISON
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK
OF TETRA TECHNOLOGIES INC. ("TETRA") BETWEEN MAY 3, 2006 AND
OCTOBER 16, 2007, INCLUSIVE AND WERE DAMAGED AS ALLEGED IN
THE ACTION THEREBY (THE "PLAINTIFF CLASS")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and by Order of the Court, that a class action
settlement of the above-captioned action has been proposed that
could affect your rights as a member of the Plaintiff Class. A
hearing will be held before the Honorable Keith P. Ellison at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
515 Rusk Ave., Room 3716, Houston, TX 77208 on September 29, 2010
at 2:30 p.m., to
determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, as well as Lead
Plaintiff's Counsels' application for costs and fees.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN AN $8.25 MILLION
SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a Proof of Claim
form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting:
TETRA Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation
P.O. Box 6177
Novato, CA 94948-6177
http://www.tetratechnologiesincsecuritieslitigation.com/
If you are a Plaintiff Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim form postmarked by October 29, 2010, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery. If you are a Plaintiff Class Member,
and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by
any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim.
If you are excluded from the Plaintiff Class, you will not share
in the Settlement and you will not be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action. If you desire to be excluded from the
Plaintiff Class, you must file a request for exclusion postmarked
by September 8, 2010, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice referred to above.
Any objection to any of the matters to be considered at the
Settlement Hearing must be mailed or delivered such that it is
received by each of the following no later than September 8, 2010:
THE COURT:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
LEAD PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL:
David R. Scott, Esq.
Scott+Scott LLP
156 South Main St.
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
Paul R. Bessette, Esq.
Greenburg Traurig LLP
300 West Sixth, Suite 2050
Austin, TX 78701
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: JULY 23, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TOYOTA MOTOR: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Defective Car Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that lawyers in the multidistrict litigation against Toyota Motor
Corp. have filed their first consolidated complaint, alleging that
the Japanese carmaker knowingly hid defects associated with
unintended acceleration since 2002 while falsely assuring
consumers about the safety of its vehicles.
The complaint, filed on Monday, seeks economic damages for a
nationwide class of consumers and businesses, including rental car
companies and automobile dealerships. The complaint excludes
claims arising from deaths and injuries.
The MDL involves more than 200 lawsuits filed after Toyota
recalled more than 8 million vehicles for defects associated with
unintended acceleration -- specifically, problems with accelerator
pedals and floor mats. Monday's filing alleges that the defects
include problems with the electronic throttle control system.
"It all relates to one overriding issue, and that is, they knew
they had an unintended acceleration problem, whether or not it
comes from the electronic throttle control system or the floor
mats or the sticky pedals," said Steve Berman, Esq., a partner at
Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and one of three lead
plaintiffs' counsel who signed the complaint. "What unites all
these defects is they needed a fail-safe mechanism."
The class involves consumers and businesses that purchased 55
makes and models of Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles dating to
1998.
The complaint cites California consumer-protection laws, including
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair
Competition Law, as well as breach of contract, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, fraud by concealment and unjust
enrichment.
"We think California law is extremely pro-consumer and that all
consumers would want to invoke the benefit of California law," Mr.
Berman said. "Second, it's more manageable to have a class
certified if you're applying the law of one state, as opposed to
the law of 50 states."
The plaintiffs filed their complaint in two forms: An economic
loss master consolidated complaint filed by some 50 named
consumers and four businesses located throughout the country; and
a first amended consolidated complaint filed by 10 consumers and
two businesses in California.
The dual filings were necessary to pursue claims under California
law, Mr. Berman said.
"Since we wanted the judge to apply California law, we also
amended all the cases in his district," Mr. Berman said.
In response to the filing, Toyota issued a statement on Tuesday:
"Toyota has identified two specific mechanical causes of potential
unintended acceleration in some of its vehicles and has moved
decisively to address these issues with effective and durable
solutions. Toyota rejects claims that plaintiffs suffered
economic damages because of the recent recalls. Importantly, to
date, plaintiffs have not cited a specific cause that would
support their claim of a defect in Toyota's Electronic Throttle
Control System, and no credible scientific theory or proof has
been advanced to support this allegation. Toyota firmly believes
that the system is completely safe and that reliable scientific
evidence will demonstrate the safety of our vehicles in the
investigations currently underway and, ultimately, to the court."
Plaintiffs' lawyer may be reached at:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN LLP
1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Master Consolidated Complaint Filed in RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that on Monday, a separate master consolidated complaint was filed
against Toyota Motor Corp. on behalf of millions of foreign
consumers who allege violations of the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and of various California
consumer laws, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and negligence.
The complaint was filed on behalf of consumers seeking economic
damages, and those who have suffered injuries or died in Toyotas.
The plaintiffs are six consumers in Mexico, 12 in China, five in
Indonesia and one each in Germany, Turkey, Jamaica, Peru, South
Africa, Egypt and the Philippines. The complaint excludes U.S.
consumers.
Monica R. Kelly, a partner at Ribbeck Law Chartered in Chicago,
who filed the complaint, did not return a call for comment. In
May, U.S. District Judge James Selna, who is presiding over the
MDL, appointed Ms. Kelly to serve as a consultant to the liaison
and lead counsel committees for Toyota consumers outside the
United States.
When asked about the foreign consumer complaint, Steve Berman,
Esq., a partner at Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, said:
"They were supposed to consult with us. There's an order that says
nothing can be filed without the signature of lead counsel. And we
did not consent to the filing of the complaint." Mr. Berman is
one of three lead plaintiffs' counsel in a separate case alleging
that the Japanese carmaker knowingly hid defects associated with
unintended acceleration since 2002 while falsely assuring
consumers about the safety of its vehicles.
Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:
Monica R. Kelly, Esq.
RIBBECK LAW CHARTERED
Lake Point Tower
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Telephone: 312-822-9999
312-806-6776
Email: monicakelly@ribbecklaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN LLP
1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
UNITED FIRE: Certification Ruling Appeal Pending in High Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Company's appeal to the Louisiana Supreme
Court from an order certifying a class in suit relating to the
damages incurred in Hurricane Katrina is currently in the briefing
stage, according to the company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.
The class is defined as all Lafayette Insurance Company personal
lines policyholders within an eight parish area in and around New
Orleans who sustained wind damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina
and whose claims were at least partially denied or allegedly
misadjusted continues to defend seven class action cases relating
to disputes arising from damages that occurred as a result of
Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
The company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits,
including actions seeking certification from the court to proceed
as a class action suit and actions filed by individual
policyholders, relating to disputes arising from damages that
occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. As of
June 30, 2010, there were approximately 130 individual
policyholder cases pending, and an additional seven class action
cases pending.
These cases have been filed in Louisiana state courts and federal
district courts and involve, among other claims, disputes as to
the amount of reimbursable claims in particular cases, as well as
the scope of insurance coverage under homeowners and commercial
property policies due to flooding, civil authority actions, loss
of use and business interruption. Certain of these cases also
claim a breach of duty of good faith or violations of Louisiana
insurance claims-handling laws or regulations and involve claims
for punitive or exemplary damages. Other cases claim that under
Louisiana's so-called "Valued Policy Law," the insurers must pay
the total insured value of a home that is totally destroyed if any
portion of such damage was caused by a covered peril, even if the
principal cause of the loss was an excluded peril. Other cases
challenge the scope or enforceability of the water damage
exclusion in the policies.
Several actions pending against various insurers, including the
company, were consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery and
motion practice under the caption In re Katrina Canal Breaches
Consolidated Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-4182 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
In August 2009, the Federal trial court ruled in that case that
certification of policyholder claims as a class would be
inappropriate. This ruling has been appealed by the plaintiff
policyholders. Federal court rulings in that case are not binding
on state courts, which do not have to follow the federal court
ruling on class certification.
Following an April 2008 Louisiana Supreme Court decision finding
that flood damage was clearly excluded from coverage, both state
and federal courts have been reviewing pending lawsuits seeking
class certification and other pending lawsuits to expedite
pre-trial discovery and to move the cases towards trial.
In the six-month period ended June 30, 2010, the company concluded
approximately 85 of the 215 lawsuits that were pending at Dec. 31,
2009.
In July 2008, Lafayette Insurance Company participated in a
hearing in St Bernard Parish, Louisiana after which the court
entered an order certifying a class defined as all Lafayette
Insurance Company personal lines policyholders within an eight
parish area in and around New Orleans who sustained wind damage as
a result of Hurricane Katrina and whose claims were at least
partially denied or allegedly misadjusted.
The company appealed the order as it feels it was not supported by
the evidence. On Oct. 14, 2009, the company was notified that its
appeal to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was
denied.
The company sought review of this decision by the Louisiana
Supreme Court and in May 2010 was notified that the Court had
agreed to review the case.
The case is currently in the briefing stage.
United Fire & Casualty Company -- http://www.unitedfiregroup.com/
-- is engaged in the business of writing property and casualty
insurance and life insurance and selling annuities. It operates
in two business segments: property and casualty, and life
insurance. The company's subsidiaries include United Fire and
United Life Insurance Company, Addison Insurance Company, United
Fire and Indemnity Company, United Fire Lloyds, and Texas General
Indemnity Company.
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Settles N.J. Class Suit for $80-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for the New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a U.S. magistrate judge in Newark, N.J., on Tuesday approved
a $69 million settlement in a nationwide class action by owners of
Volkswagens and Audis whose interiors leaked during rainstorms.
The settlement also provides for $9.2 million in fees and $675,000
in costs for the two class-counsel firms. In addition, nine class
representatives each will receive $10,000 in compensation.
The suit, DelGuercio v. Volkswagen of America Inc., 2:07-cv-2249,
was filed against Volkswagen of America Inc. and its subsidiaries,
including Audi, and covered roughly 3 million vehicles and 5.5
million class members. They claimed violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act as well as breach of express and implied
warranty and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The vehicles in question were certain Volkswagen Passat, Jetta,
New Beetle, Golf and Touareg and Audi A4, A6 and A8 models made
between 1997 and 2005. The suit alleged two design defects in the
vehicles. It said leaves and other debris clogged a pollen filter,
preventing water entering the car's cowl from draining to the
ground, and clogged drain holes designed to carry water from the
sunroof mechanism. Both defects allow water to enter the passenger
compartment near the dashboard and sunroof, in some cases damaging
electronic components or ruining the carpet.
Adam Slater, Esq., of Mazie, Slater, Katz & Freeman and Samuel
Sporn, Esq., of Schoengold & Sporn in New York, who each filed
suits in the District of New Jersey, were named co-lead class
counsel when their suits were consolidated.
When a plaintiff's expert first estimated the value of the
settlement at $142 million on June 9, class counsel asked for
$22.5 million in fees, or 15.8% of the settlement.
On July 23, both sides agreed on a total valuation of $90 million
with a 25% fee.
But U.S Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz knocked the settlement
figure to $69 million after a lengthy review of the plaintiff's
estimated value of the settlement.
The plaintiff's expert put the value of mailings to class members
about preventative maintenance measures related to the defects at
$28 million. That total included the cost of future labor, parts,
towing and loaner cars, but Judge Shwartz said those costs would
be made unnecessary by the preventative maintenance, so she
assigned a value of $13.1 million to this portion of the
settlement.
Judge Shwartz also said the plaintiff's expert improperly included
the cost of towing and loaner cars, because this cost would be
borne by the dealer, not the owner or lessee. Further, the judge
found the expert double counted costs by factoring in both the
value of avoiding future repairs and the diminution of the value
of the car if it had water damage.
"While the two components address different consequences of the
avoided water damage, one of the two will never come about because
the maintenance avoids it," she said.
The plaintiff's expert put the value of reimbursements of work
already paid for by class members at $14.5 million, but Judge
Shwartz assigned a value of $9.4 million. And for work still to be
performed on class members' cars, the expert's figure of $55.2
million was cut to $46.6 million. Many reductions were related to
the expert's assumption that 100% of eligible parties would take
advantage of the settlement, a stance Judge Shwartz said is
contrary to case law.
Judge Shwartz calculated the attorney fees as a percentage of the
recovery, dismissing use of the lodestar method because it is
usually used in fee-shifting cases and this is not such a case.
In reaching the 13% fee rather than the 15% first sought, she also
commented that the complaints were filed three years ago, and 10
months were spent on settlement negotiations. Discovery took two
years.
In light of that, "this settlement does not represent a
particularly speedy resolution," she said.
Citing two other automobile defect cases filed in the District of
New Jersey that settled in shorter periods than the current case,
Judge Shwartz concluded that a fee award of 13 percent, or $9.2
million, was reasonable.
Messrs. Slater and Sporn will decide how much each firm gets.
Three other attorneys from Slater's firm also worked on the case:
David Freeman, Matthew Mendelsohn and Karen Kelsen.
The court received 203 objections to the settlement, including
accusations that counsel fees and compensation for class
representatives were too high and that class members were not
adequately compensated. Judge Shwartz said she considered this a
small number in light of the class size and said the objectors
could opt out.
Mr. Sporn did not return a call. Nor did Volkswagen's lawyers,
Jeffrey Chase and Peter Kurshan of Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin
in Livingston, N.J.
A spokeswoman for Volkswagen of America, Sheriece Matias, says the
company would not comment on the case.
Plaintiffs' lawyers may be reached at:
Adam M. Slater, Esq.
David Freeman, Esq.
Matthew Mendelsohn, Esq.
Karen Kelsen, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-9898
- and -
Samuel P. Sporn, Esq.
SCHOENGOLD & SPORN, P.C.
Cannon's Walk
19 Fulton Street, Suite 407
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: 212-964-0046
Facsimile: 212-267-8137
Email: sporn@spornlaw.com
Defendants' lawyers may be reached at:
Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
125 Broad Street
New York, NY, 10004
Telephone: (212) 471-8460 (Direct Dial)
Facsimile: (212) 344-3333
E-mail: JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
- and -
Peter J. Kurshan, Esq.
HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
125 Broad Street
New York, NY, 10004
Telephone: (973) 422-6544 (Direct Dial)
(212) 471-8500
Facsimile: (212) 344-3333
E-mail: PKurshan@herzfeld-rubin.com
PKurshan@chaselawnj.com
WADDELL & REED: Defends FLSA-Violations Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., defends a suit asserting claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, according to the
company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
The suit is Michael E. Taylor, Kenneth B. Young, individuals, on
behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Development, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Financial Advisors, a fictitious
business name; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive; Case No.
09-cv-2909 DMS WVG; in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.
In an action filed Dec. 28, 2009, the company, along with various
of its affiliates, were sued in an individual action, class action
and Fair Labor Standards Act nationwide collective action by two
former advisors asserting misclassification of financial advisors
as independent contractors instead of employees. Plaintiffs
assert claims under the FLSA for minimum wages and overtime wages,
and under California Labor Code Statutes for timely pay wages,
minimum wages, overtime compensation, meal periods, reimbursement
of losses and business expenses and itemized wage statements and a
claim for Unfair Business Practices under Section 17200 of the
California Business & Professions Code.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary
damages.
Waddell & Reed, Inc. -- http://www.waddell.com/-- founded in
1937, is one of the oldest mutual fund complexes in the United
States, having introduced the Waddell & Reed Advisors Group of
Mutual Funds in 1940. Today, the company distributes its
investment products through the Waddell & Reed Advisors channel
(our network of financial advisors), its Wholesale channel
(encompassing broker/dealer, retirement, registered investment
advisors as well as the activities of our Legend subsidiary), and
its Institutional channel (including defined benefit plans,
pension plans and endowments and its sub-advisory partnership with
Mackenzie in Canada). Through its subsidiaries, Waddell & Reed
Financial, Inc. provides investment management and financial
planning services to clients throughout the United States.
Waddell & Reed Investment Management Company serves as investment
advisor to the Waddell & Reed Advisors Group of Mutual Funds, Ivy
Funds Variable Insurance Portfolios, Inc. and Waddell & Reed
InvestEd Portfolios, Inc., while Ivy Investment Management Company
serves as investment advisor to Ivy Funds, Inc. and the Ivy Funds
portfolios. Waddell & Reed, Inc. serves as principal underwriter
and distributor to the Waddell & Reed Advisors Group of Mutual
Funds, Ivy Funds Variable Insurance Portfolio, Inc. and Waddell &
Reed InvestEd Portfolios, Inc., while Ivy Funds Distributor, Inc.
serves as principal underwriter and distributor to Ivy Funds, Inc.
and the Ivy Funds portfolios.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: NSP-Minnesota Faces EnviroTech Remediation Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern State Power Company (NSP-Minnesota) is involved in a case
related to asbestos styled EnviroTech Remediation Services, Inc.
vs. Brandenburg Industrial Services Co., NSP- Minnesota, et al.
In 2009, a mechanic's lien foreclosure lawsuit was served against
NSP-Minnesota by EnviroTech Remediation Services, Inc. and other
defendants. EnviroTech's claims against NSP-Minnesota arise out
of mechanics' liens recorded by EnviroTech and its subcontractors
against NSP-Minnesota's High Bridge generating plant property in
St. Paul, Minn., in the amount of about US$7 million plus
attorneys' fees and interest.
EnviroTech is a subcontractor to Brandenburg Industrial Services
Co., a general construction company hired by NSP-Minnesota to
perform demolition services and asbestos and lead abatement work
at the old High Bridge generating plant. Brandenburg
subcontracted part of its asbestos and lead abatement work to
EnviroTech.
EnviroTech claims it and its subcontractors furnished additional
work and materials during performance of the Brandenburg/
EnviroTech subcontract. EnviroTech seeks additional compensation
from Brandenburg and NSP-Minnesota for the claimed extra work and
materials.
Further, EnviroTech notified NSP-Minnesota it intends to assert an
additional US$3 million claim in the lawsuit for destruction of
business against Brandenburg and NSP-Minnesota.
At a hearing in February 2010, the court stayed the lawsuit to
allow EnviroTech and Brandenburg to proceed to binding
arbitration, as required by the Brandenburg/EnviroTech
subcontract. NSP-Minnesota is not a party to the arbitration,
which is expected to occur later this year.
In June 2010, NSP-Minnesota participated in court-ordered
mediation with EnviroTech and Brandenburg. The parties did not
reach resolution at the mediation.
Minneapolis-based Northern States Power Company is an Xcel Energy
Inc. subsidiary. Xcel Energy is a holding company distributes
electricity to 3.4 million customers and natural gas to 1.9
million in eight states. Colorado and Minnesota account for the
majority of its customers.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Ron Couch Building Penalized for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
During a Health and Safety Executive prosecution on July 29, 2010,
Caerphilly Magistrates' Court heard Ron Couch Building Contractors
Ltd. was replacing a central heating boiler at a private property
in High Street, Pontypool, Wales, according to an HSE press
release dated July 30, 2010.
Carpenters from the Griffithstown-based firm removed a cupboard
door clad with asbestos insulation board to take out the boiler. A
supervisor from a licensed contractor working in a nearby property
approached the men when he saw the door outside and warned them of
the presence of AIB.
The law states that any work involving AIB must be done by
licensed contractors but the HSE investigation found workers were
instructed by a senior manager to seal the walls of the cupboard
with plasterboard.
At a hearing in Caerphilly Magistrates' Court, Ron Couch Building
Contractors Ltd Panteg Station, Station Road, Griffithstown
pleaded guilty to two charges under the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2006. The Company was fined a total of GBP2,500 and
ordered to pay GBP1,250 costs.
HSE Inspector Steve Richardson said, "The Company was well aware
of its legal duties in terms of asbestos work as, prior to this
incident, it carried out removal of the asbestos boiler flue in a
safe manner using qualified personnel.
"AIB poses less of a risk if not damaged, but this work exposed
the edges of the board increasing the risk of releasing asbestos
fibers, which could be inhaled by the workers and anyone else
using the premises. This is one of the main reasons why this type
of work must be carried out by a licensed contractor, and the work
should have stopped as soon as the company was made aware it was
AIB."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. Cliffs Natural, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are
still party to claims over the exposure of asbestos and silica to
seamen who sailed on the Great Lakes vessels formerly owned and
operated by certain of the Company's subsidiaries.
The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and/or The Cleveland-Cliffs
Steamship Company have been named defendants in 489 actions
brought from 1986 to date by former seamen in which the plaintiffs
claim damages under federal law for illnesses allegedly suffered
as the result of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers while
serving as crew members aboard the vessels previously owned or
managed by the Company's entities until the mid-1980s.
All of these actions have been consolidated into multidistrict
proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, whose docket
now includes a total of over 30,000 maritime cases filed by seamen
against ship-owners and other defendants. All of these cases have
been dismissed without prejudice, but could be reinstated upon
application by plaintiffs' counsel. By a series of court orders,
the court has been reinstating cases and dismissing other cases
without prejudice.
The Company is a defendant in 14 cases that have been reinstated
and 34 cases that have been dismissed. The claims in the 14
reinstated cases involve allegations with respect to lung cancer,
asbestosis and pleural changes of varying severity. The court
entered an order on March 2, 2010, dismissing without prejudice,
at the request of plaintiffs' counsel, the claims against the
viable defendants in 7,405 cases.
Separately, the cases that were recently reinstated have been
placed in suspense pending further order of the court. In their
place, plaintiffs' counsel are to produce a list of about 4,000
cases that they wish to pursue, with the remaining cases to be
dismissed subject to a tolling agreement to be drafted by counsel
and presented to the parties for approval.
A draft tolling agreement is under negotiation. To date, the list
of 4,000 cases has not been provided by plaintiffs' counsel.
Cleveland-based Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is an international
mining and natural resources company. The Company produces iron
ore pellets in North America, supplies direct-shipping lump and
fines iron ore out of Australia, and produces metallurgical coal.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 90,100 Open Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faced 90,100 pending asbestos
claims during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with
90,200 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2010.
During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
700 new claims filed and 800 claims settled or dismissed. Payments
were US$18 million. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company recorded 1,600 new claims filed and 10,400 claims settled
or dismissed. Payments were US$20 million.
The Company faced 90,500 pending asbestos-related claims during
the three months ended March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, May
7, 2010)
The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by the
Company or present in certain of its facilities.
To date, the Company has disposed of about 83,300 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into
a settlement. The sum of its accrued asbestos-related liability
and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled about
US$360 million through June 30, 2010 and US$349 million through
Dec. 31, 2009.
The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$129
million at June 30, 2010 and US$136 million at Dec. 31, 2009. At
June 30, 2010, the Company estimates that it is reasonably
possible that its gross liabilities, net of its estimate for
probable insurance recoveries, could exceed its recorded amounts
by US$15 million.
The Company recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of
US$66 million as of June 30, 2010 and US$69 million as of Dec. 31,
2009. Of these amounts, US$10 million and US$11 million were
included in Current Assets as part of Accounts receivable at June
30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, respectively.
The Company said it believes that, at June 30, 2010, it had about
US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products
claims, in addition to limits of available primary insurance
policies.
A portion of the availability of the excess level policies is
included in the US$66 million insurance receivable recorded at
June 30, 2010. The Company also had about US$15 million in
aggregate limits for products claims, as well as coverage for
premise claims on a per occurrence basis, and defense costs
available with the Company's primary insurance carriers through
coverage-in-place agreements at June 30, 2010.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufactures tires and is based
in Akron, Ohio. The Company has a global footprint with 57
manufacturing facilities in 23 countries, including the United
States. The Company operates its business through four operating
segments: North American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa
Tire; Latin American Tire; and Asia Pacific Tire.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Has $5MM Expense for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded US$5 million of
expense related to asbestos claims in the second quarter of 2010
and 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
July 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
General and product liability -- discontinued products includes
charges for claims against the Company related primarily to
asbestos personal injury claims, net of probable insurance
recoveries.
In addition, the Company recorded a US$2 million reduction of
probable insurance recoveries in the second quarter of 2010 and
US$2 million of income related to probable insurance recoveries in
the second quarter of 2009.
The Company recorded US$12 million in the first six months of 2010
(US$13 million in the first six months of 2009) of expense related
to asbestos claims. In addition, the Company recorded US$1 million
in the first six months of 2010 (US$5 million in the first six
months of 2009) of income related to probable insurance
recoveries.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufactures tires and is based
in Akron, Ohio. The Company has a global footprint with 57
manufacturing facilities in 23 countries, including the United
States. The Company operates its business through four operating
segments: North American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa
Tire; Latin American Tire; and Asia Pacific Tire.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich, Units Still Party to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries are still named
defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a
result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at its
facilities.
A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
July 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Charlotte, N.C.-based Goodrich Corporation supplies aerospace
components, systems and services to the commercial and general
aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies systems and
products to the global defense and space markets.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Has 6,400 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., as of June 30, 2010, has determined that it
is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
about 6,400 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on July 29, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
As of March 31, 2010, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about
6,700 plaintiffs and claimants. (Class Action Reporter, May 7,
2010)
The Company is one of a number of defendants in a substantial
number of lawsuits filed in numerous state and federal courts by
persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a result of
exposure to dust containing asbestos fibers.
From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.
In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country. Some plaintiffs' counsel have historically withheld
claims under these agreements for later presentation while
focusing their attention on active litigation in the tort system.
The Company said it believes that as of June 30, 2010, there are
about 800 claims against other defendants that are likely to be
asserted some time in the future against the Company.
The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits
or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.
Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
June 30, 2010, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
380,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$7,700. Deferred amounts payable totaled
about US$39.8 million at June 30, 2010 (US$36.3 million at
Dec. 31, 2009) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity
payment per claim.
Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established
in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about US$3.65 billion
through 2009, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-
related liability.
Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactures consumer-
preferred, 100-percent recyclable glass containers. The Company
employs more than 22,000 people with 78 plants in 22 countries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Party to Claims in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is still one of several unrelated
defendants in asbestos lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on July 29, 2010, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The suits allege that defendants manufactured, distributed or
utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's
case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its
offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek an award of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity from
Murphy Exploration & Production Company under the terms of the
Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them.
Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides contract
drilling services to the energy industry around the globe. The
Company has a fleet of 46 offshore rigs currently consisting of 32
semi-submersibles, 13 jack-ups and one drillship. On July 7,
2010, the Company completed the sale of one of its high-
performance, premium jack-up drilling rigs, the Ocean Shield.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 31,000 Cases Ongoing v. Dana Holding at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 31,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims at June 30, 2010, and Dec. 31,
2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on July
29, 2010, with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
About 11,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled and are
awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or without
payment. The Company has accrued US$110 million for indemnity and
defense costs for settled, pending and future claims at
June 30, 2010, compared with US$113 million at Dec. 31, 2009.
Maumee, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline
products (axles and driveshafts), power technologies (sealing and
thermal management products) and genuine service parts for light
and heavy vehicle manufacturers. Its people design and
manufacture products for every major vehicle producer in the
world.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Cites $58M June 30 Insurance Asset
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, at June 30, 2010, had recorded US$58
million as an asset for probable recovery from its insurers for
the pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability
claims, unchanged from the asset at Dec. 31, 2009, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on July 29, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
During the first six months of 2010, the Company recorded US$1
million of pre-tax expense (US$2 million during the first quarter,
offset by a US$1 million credit during the second quarter) to
correct amounts primarily associated with asbestos-related
insurance receivables at Dec. 31, 2009.
Maumee, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline
products (axles and driveshafts), power technologies (sealing and
thermal management products) and genuine service parts for light
and heavy vehicle manufacturers. Its people design and manufacture
products for every major vehicle producer in the world.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3,500 Actions Pending v. Tyco Int'l. at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 3,500 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against
Tyco International Ltd. and its subsidiaries as of June 25, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
July 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Each lawsuit typically includes several claims, and the Company
has determined that there were about 4,300 claims outstanding as
of June 25, 2010.
As of March 26, 2010, there were about 4,400 asbestos-related
lawsuits pending against the Company and its subsidiaries. Each
lawsuit typically included several claims, and the Company had
determined that there were about 5,600 claims outstanding. (Class
Action Reporter, April 30, 2010)
The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure
to asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of
manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that
either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with
asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-parties.
Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial since 2005, the
Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one case
returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million, which
included both compensatory and punitive damages. The Company has
appealed the verdict and believes that it will ultimately be
overturned.
The Company increased its estimated net liability, which resulted
in the Company recording a net charge of about US$52 million
during the quarter ended June 25, 2010.
As of June 25, 2010, the Company's estimated net liability of
US$104 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and
related defense costs of US$317 million, and separately as an
asset for insurance recoveries of US$213 million.
Schaffhausen, Switzerland-based Tyco International Ltd. is made up
of five divisions: Fire Protection Services (fire detection and
suppression systems), Electrical and Metal Products (steel tubing,
pipes, and cables for commercial construction), ADT Worldwide
(security systems), Safety Products (protective equipment), and
Flow Control (valves).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Facing 507 Exposure Actions at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation, as of June 30, 2010, faced a total of 507
asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on July 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company and several of its U.S. subsidiaries, as of
March 31, 2010, were defendants in about 516 asbestos cases.
(Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2010)
As of June 30, 2010, the Company recorded two case adjustments, 22
new cases filed, and 43 resolved cases.
As of June 30, 2010, the Company and several of its United States
subsidiaries are defendants in asbestos cases. Because many of
these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject to
claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases.
Dallas-based Celanese Corporation is a technology and specialty
materials company. The Company's business involves processing
chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon monoxide and
ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into value-
added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based
products.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chem. Unit Still Party to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation's inactive subsidiary, which was
acquired in 1978 and sold certain products containing asbestos on
an installed basis, is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.
The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received. To date, the majority of these claims have
been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse
judgments against the subsidiary.
Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is about US$8.5 million (excluding costs of defense).
Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain
of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the
Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or
settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary.
These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.
A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their
policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the
applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against
the subsidiary.
In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate
settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005
and in the first quarter of 2007 for US$15 million and US$20
million, respectively.
The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
were structured to be received over a four-year period with annual
installments of US$5 million, the final installment which was
received in the first quarter of 2010.
The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can be used to
pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's
asbestos litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the
subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered
into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the
carrier will pay 27 percent of defense and indemnity costs
incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with
asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years
beginning July 1, 2007.
Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corporation provides
process chemicals, chemical specialties, services and technical
expertise to industries -- including steel, automotive, mining,
aerospace, tube and pipe, coatings and construction materials.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Martin Still Party Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Corporation, like many other industrial companies
in recent years, is a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into its
premises and certain historical products.
The Company has never mined or produced asbestos and no longer
incorporates it in any manufactured products. The Company has been
successful in having a substantial number of these claims
dismissed without payment.
The remaining resolved claims have settled for amounts that are
not material individually or in the aggregate. Most of the
asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other
forms of indemnity.
Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corporation is a global
security company that principally is engaged in the research,
design, development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of
advanced technology systems and products. The Company provides
management, engineering, technical, scientific, logistic, and
information services.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ladish Co. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co., Inc. continues to be named as a defendant in a number
of asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on July 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
As of July 29, 2010, the Company has 11 individual claims pending
in Mississippi and four individual claims pending in Illinois.
The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
Company's exposure to asbestos involves products the Company
purchased from third parties.
As of April 27, 2010, the Company had 11 individual claims pending
in Mississippi, two individual claims pending in Illinois and one
individual claim pending in Wisconsin, for a total of 14 asbestos-
related claims. (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2010)
Cudahy, Wis.-based Ladish Co., Inc. designs, produces and markets
forged and cast metal components for load-bearing and fatigue-
resisting applications in the jet engine, aerospace and industrial
markets.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10 Lorillard Filter Actions Scheduled for Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of July 22, 2010, 10 asbestos-
related Filter Cases were scheduled for trial, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on July 29, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Trial dates are subject to change.
Claims have been brought against the Company and subsidiary
Lorillard Tobacco Company by individuals who seek damages
resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were
incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes
manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago.
Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 34 Filter Cases. The Company
is a defendant in four Filter Cases, including two that also name
Lorillard Tobacco.
Since Jan. 1, 2008, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of about US$16.8 million in settlements
to finally resolve about 80 claims. The related expense was
recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the
consolidated statements of income. Since Jan. 1, 2008, verdicts
have been returned in two Filter Cases.
In September 2008, a jury in the District Court of Bexar County,
Tex., returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco in Young v.
Lorillard Tobacco Company. Plaintiffs in the Young case did not
pursue an appeal and that matter is concluded.
In January 2010, a jury in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco in Cox v.
Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al. Plaintiffs in the Cox case have
noticed an appeal to the California Court of Appeals.
Greensboro, N.C.-based Lorillard, Inc. manufactures and sells
cigarettes. Its principal products are marketed under the brand
names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max with
substantially all of its sales in the United States of America.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11,100 Cases Pending v. Mallinckrodt at June 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 25, 2010, there were about 11,100 asbestos liability
cases pending against Covidien Public Limited Company's
subsidiary, Mallinckrodt Inc., according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on July 30, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
There were about 11,200 asbestos liability cases pending against
Mallinckrodt as of March 26, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, May 7,
2010)
Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
incorporating asbestos.
A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on
claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on
Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically names dozens of
corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt.
The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury
or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products
containing asbestos.
Dublin-based Covidien Public Limited Company supplies health care
providers with everything from generic pharmaceuticals and
disposable medical products to diagnostic imaging contrast agents
and surgical devices. The Company has global manufacturing
operations and markets its products in more than 140 countries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Facing 18,000 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner, Inc. faced about 18,000 pending asbestos-related
product liability claims as of both June 30, 2010 and Dec. 31,
2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
July 30, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the United States, the Company (or parties the Company
is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.
Of the 18,000 outstanding claims at June 30, 2010, about 9,000
were pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort and
judicial reform activities are underway.
In 2010, of about 5,500 claims resolved, about 121 (2.2%) resulted
in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company. In the full year of 2009, of about 5,300 claims resolved,
only 223 (4.2%) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant
by or on behalf of the Company.
To date, the Company has paid and accrued US$136.3 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received US$23.9 million in cash from insurers. The net
outstanding balance of US$112.4 million, which includes US$40.7
million, is expected to be fully recovered, of which about US$50
million is expected to be recovered within one year. At Dec. 31,
2009, insurers owed US$58.6 million in association with these
claims.
Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly
engineered automotive systems and components, primarily for
powertrain applications. These products are manufactured and sold
worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of
light-vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and
light-trucks).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner's Bid in N.J. Case Denied on July 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New Jersey, on July 8, 2010, denied
BorgWarner, Inc.'s Notice of Petition appealing the decision of
the lower courts in an insurance-related asbestos action.
On April 5, 2010 the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate
Division affirmed a lower court judgment in an asbestos-related
action against the Company and others. The Company filed its
Notice of Petition to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in late
April, seeking to appeal the decisions of the lower courts.
As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, the Company increased
its estimated liability for claims asserted, but not yet paid by
US$36.7 million to US$40.7 million and increased the Company's
related insurance receivable by US$36.7 million to recognize the
proceeds receivable from insurance carriers.
The total claim of US$40.7 million is expected to be paid by the
Company in July 2010.
In addition to the US$112.4 million net outstanding balance
relating to past settlements and defense costs, the Company has
estimated a liability of US$46.5 million for claims asserted, but
not yet resolved and their related defense costs at June 30, 2010.
The Company also has a related asset of US$46.5 million to
recognize the proceeds receivable from the insurance carriers.
Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and decisions
received to date in a declaratory judgment action. At Dec. 31,
2009, the comparable value of the insurance receivable and accrued
liability was US$49.9 million.
Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly
engineered automotive systems and components, primarily for
powertrain applications. These products are manufactured and sold
worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of
light-vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and
light-trucks).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Involved in Continental Case in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner, Inc. and certain of its historical general liability
insurers continue to be party to a declaratory judgment action,
filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill.,
by Continental Casualty Company and related companies (CNA).
CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently
defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims.
The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned.
On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding the
apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of making
insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs pro rata
to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the
insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage.
Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is
reserved for appellate review at the end of the action.
In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-
related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of
insurance available for potential future asbestos-related product
claims.
Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly
engineered automotive systems and components, primarily for
powertrain applications. These products are manufactured and sold
worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of
light-vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and
light-trucks).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds American Units Party to Parsons Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Reynolds American Inc., R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., are still
involved in an asbestos case styled Parsons v. A C & S, Inc.
In the case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County,
W.Va., the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies
of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover
US$1 million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and
an unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and
punitive damages.
The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco.
The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.
Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.
Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc. is a holding
company whose operating subsidiaries include the second largest
cigarette manufacturer in the United States, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, and the second largest smokeless tobacco products
manufacturer in the United States, American Snuff Company, LLC.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Unit Still Involved in Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation's subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation
(or its predecessor, Armco Inc.), since 1990, has been named as a
defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.
As of Dec. 31, 2009, there were about 426 such lawsuits pending
against AK Steel. Most of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf
of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while
visiting the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility.
About 40% of these premises suits arise out of claims of exposure
at a facility in Houston that has been closed since 1984. When an
asbestos lawsuit initially is filed, the complaint typically does
not include a specific dollar claim for damages. About 130 of the
426 cases pending at Dec. 31, 2009, in which AK Steel is a
defendant include specific dollar claims for damages in the filed
complaints. Those 130 cases involve a total of 2,489 plaintiffs
and 17,089 defendants.
In these cases, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim
for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.
Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel.
West Chester, Ohio-based AK Steel Holding Corporation AK Steel
Holding Corporation is a fully-integrated producer of flat-rolled
carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular products
through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $11M Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability is about US$11 million as of June 30, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on July 30, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability
including related legal costs through March 31, 2028 and March 31,
2040 to range between US$7.4 million and US$17.8 million using
actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30
years.
Amherst, N.Y.-based Columbus McKinnon Corporation designs, markets
and manufactures material handling products, systems and services,
which efficiently and ergonomically move, lift, position and
secure material. Key products include hoists, cranes, rigging
tools including chain and forged attachments, and actuators.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Involved in Unresolved Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. continues to face unresolved legal actions
involving disputes on product design, manufacture and performance
liability (including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues, environmental matters or
intellectual property rights.
No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on July 30, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar Inc. makes construction, mining,
and logging machinery; diesel and natural gas engines; industrial
gas turbines; and electrical power generation systems. The
Company sells its equipment worldwide via a network of 3,500
locations in 180 countries.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Facing 28 Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Company currently has 28 pending asbestos cases, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on July 30, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company had 27 pending asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter,
May 7, 2010)
Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
asbestos-containing materials.
To date, about four asbestos cases have been dismissed. Additional
claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its
subsidiaries. The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuits to
date.
The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
asbestos and silica cases since inception was about US$100,000,
most of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc under the terms of
certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in 1992.
New York-based Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and
technology-based company that develops, produces and markets
worldwide a broad range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and
synthetic mineral products and supporting systems and services.
The Company has two reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and
Refractories.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Cites $12MM Net Costs at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation recorded US$12 million net asbestos-related costs
during the three months ended June 30, 2010, according to a
Company report filed on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 30, 2010.
During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
net asbestos-related costs of US$27 million.
The Company recorded net asbestos-related costs of US$15 million
during the three months ended March 31, 2010. (Class Action
Reporter, May 14, 2010)
Long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$864 million as of
June 30, 2010, compared with US$867 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.
Long-term asbestos-related assets were US$579 million as of June
30, 2010, compared with US$604 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.
White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation is a high-technology
engineering and manufacturing company operating on all seven
continents in three vital markets: water and fluids management,
global defense and security, and motion and flow control.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Records $47MM Decrease in Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated, in the six months ended June 30, 2010,
recorded a US$47 million decrease to its asbestos settlement
liability compared to an increase of US$9 million for the same
period last year, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on July 30, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The net decrease in the asbestos settlement liability in the first
half of 2010 was due to a change in the terms of the proposed
settlement, which reduced the amount of cash expected to be
contributed to the settlement.
Corning, N.Y.-based Corning Incorporated manufactures specialty
glass and ceramics. The Company creates and makes keystone
components that enable high-technology systems for consumer
electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life
sciences.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Faces 10,300 Tort Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated is currently involved in about 10,300 other
cases (about 38,700 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos and
similar amounts of monetary damages per case, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on July 30, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50& of the capital
stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation. Over a period of more
than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named
in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for
Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.
At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about
11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits
alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's
asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in
excess of US$1 million per claim.
On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
resolution of all current and future asbestos claims against it
and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or operations (the
2003 Plan). The 2003 Plan would have required Corning to
relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity
interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian
corporation, contribute 25 million shares of Corning common stock,
and pay a total of US$140 million in six annual installments
(present value $131 million at March 2003), beginning one year
after the plan's effective date, with 5.5 percent interest from
June 2004.
On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan for reasons it set out in a
memorandum opinion. Several parties, including the Company, filed
motions for reconsideration. These motions were argued on March 5,
2007, and the Bankruptcy Court reserved decision. On Jan. 29,
2009, a proposed plan of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan)
resolving issues raised by the Court in denying confirmation of
the 2003 Plan was filed with the Bankruptcy Court.
As a result, the Company said it believes the Amended PCC Plan now
represents the most probable outcome of this matter and expects
that the Amended PCC Plan will be confirmed by the Court.
Confirmation hearings on the Amended PCC Plan were held in June
2010.
The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos
claims was estimated to be US$636 million at June 30, 2010,
compared with an estimate of the liability of US$682 million at
Dec. 31, 2009.
During the first quarter of 2010, the Company recorded a US$54
million credit to reduce the asbestos litigation reserve related
to the change in terms of the proposed settlement of the PCC
asbestos claims. In the three months and six months ended June
30, 2010, the Company recorded asbestos litigation expense of US$5
million and US$7 million, respectively.
Corning, N.Y.-based Corning Incorporated manufactures specialty
glass and ceramics. The Company creates and makes keystone
components that enable high-technology systems for consumer
electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life
sciences.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife's Unit Receives 2,076 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(MLIC), received about 2,076 new asbestos-related claims during
the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with 1,726 claims
during the six months ended June 30, 2009.
MLIC received 1,180 new asbestos-related claims during the three
months ended March 31, 2010, compared with 981 claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 14,
2010)
MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages.
MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing,
producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing
products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing,
producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through
the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized
or failed to disclose those health risks.
New York-based MetLife, Inc. provides insurance, employee benefits
and financial services with operations throughout the United
States and the Latin America, Asia Pacific and Europe, Middle East
and India regions. The Company offers life insurance, annuities,
auto and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial
services to individuals.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Liabilities Still at $20.58MM at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$20,587,000 as of June 30, 2010, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company report filed on Form
8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2010.
Current asbestos-related liabilities were US$6,944,000 as of June
30, 2010, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2009.
Long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables were
US$20,466,000 as of June 30, 2010, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2009. Current asbestos-related insurance
receivables were US$6,944,000 as of June 30, 2010, the same as for
the period ended Dec. 31, 2009.
Rogers, Conn.-based Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures
high performance, specialty-material-based products for
applications in diverse markets including: portable
communications, communications infrastructure, computer and office
equipment, consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and
defense.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Supply Faces 22,500 Claims in 8 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary, Fairmont Supply Company (a
distributor of industrial supplies) faced about 22,500 asbestos
claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia,
Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Texas and Illinois.
Fairmont faced about 22,500 asbestos claims in state courts in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New
Jersey and Illinois. (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2010)
Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs
who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied
by Fairmont.
Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos
cases. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases
have not been material.
Canonsburg, Pa.-based CONSOL Energy Inc. has two principal
business units: Coal and Gas. The activities of the Coal unit are
mining, preparation and marketing of steam coal. The Coal unit has
four reportable segments: Steam, Low Volatile Metallurgical, High
Volatile Metallurgical and Other Coal.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 104,865 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation says that, as of June 30, 2010, there were 104,865
open claims against it filed in various state and federal courts
alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 2, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
As of June 30, 2010, the Company recorded 2,279 new claims, 527
settlements, and 1,584 dismissals. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company recorded 2,191 new claims, 620 settlements, 2,350
dismissals, 3,208 adjustments, and 105,435 pending claims.
The Company faced 104,999 open asbestos-related claims as of March
31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2010)
The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been
joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product
liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure. These claims allege that certain of the Company's
products sold prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party, e.g., a gasket, which contained asbestos.
To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos,
it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable. In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT
companies were distributors for other manufacturers' products that
may have contained asbestos.
Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any Company or
Goulds product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, in
a large majority of the 104,865 pending claims against the
Company, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury. Many
of those claims have been placed on inactive dockets (including
44,302 claims in Mississippi).
The Company's experience to date is that a substantial portion of
resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the
Company. As a result, management believes that about 90% of the
104,865 open claims have little or no value.
The average cost per resolved claim was US$21,600 for the six
months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$11,800 for the six
months ended June 30, 2009.
White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation is a high-technology
engineering and manufacturing company operating on all seven
continents in three vital markets: water and fluids management,
global defense and security, and motion and flow control.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Involved in Coverage Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation is involved in coverage litigation with various
insurers seeking recovery of costs incurred in connection with
certain environmental and product liabilities (including asbestos-
related liabilities).
In a suit filed in 1991, ITT Corporation, et al. v. Pacific
Indemnity Corporation et al, Sup. Ct., Los Angeles County, the
Company seeks recovery of costs related to environmental losses.
Discovery, procedural matters, changes in California law, and
various appeals have prolonged this case.
For several years, the case was on appeal before the California
Court of Appeals from a decision by the California Superior Court
dismissing certain claims made by the Company. The case is now
back before the Superior Court and the parties are engaged in
further discovery.
On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company commenced an action, Cannon
Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., Sup. Ct., Los Angeles
County, seeking recovery of costs related to asbestos product
liability losses.
During this coverage litigation, the Company has entered into
coverage-in-place settlement agreements with ACE, Wausau and Utica
Mutual dated April 2004, September 2004, and February 2007,
respectively.
These agreements provide specific coverage for the Company's
legacy asbestos liabilities. The Company is prepared to pursue
legal remedies against the remaining defendants where reasonable
negotiations are not productive.
White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation is a high-technology
engineering and manufacturing company operating on all seven
continents in three vital markets: water and fluids management,
global defense and security, and motion and flow control.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Cites $28.9MM Charges at July 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
recorded asbestos and bankruptcy charges of US$28,908,000 during
the three months ended July 4, 2010, compared with US$3,443,000
during the three months ended June 28, 2009, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 2, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy charges were US$28,260,000 during
the six months ended July 4, 2010, compared with US$11,705,000
during the six months ended June 28, 2009.
Leslie's current asbestos- and bankruptcy-related liabilities were
US$82,431,000 as of July 4, 2010, compared with US$12,476,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2009. Leslie's long-term asbestos- and bankruptcy-
related liabilities were US$47,785,000.
On July 12, 2010, Leslie filed a voluntary petition under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware and, simultaneously, filed a pre-
negotiated plan of reorganization in an effort to permanently
resolve Leslie's asbestos liability.
As a result of the filing by Leslie of the Bankruptcy Petition and
Reorganization Plan, however, the Company has accrued liabilities
based on the terms of the Reorganization Plan.
The Company has recorded net Leslie asbestos and bankruptcy
liabilities for resolution of pending and future claims of US$81.3
million (all classified as a current liability) as of July 4,
2010, compared with US$55.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.
Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. provides valves
and fluid control products for the energy, aerospace, and
industrial markets. The Company offers products that allow it to
supply end-users with a wide array of valves, systems and
component products for fluid control.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Faces 1,214 Cases at July 4
------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
faced 1,214 open asbestos-related cases during the three months
ended July 4, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Aug. 2, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
During the three months ended July 4, 2010, the Company recorded
169 cases filed, 105 cases resolved and dismissed, and 672 open
mesothelioma cases.
Like many other manufacturers of fluid control products, Leslie,
which the Company acquired in 1989, had been up to the date of
filing of the Bankruptcy Petition and may continue to be named as
a defendant in product liability actions brought on behalf of
individuals who seek compensation for their alleged exposure to
airborne asbestos fibers.
In some instances, the Company has also been named individually
and/or as alleged successor in interest in these cases.
At the end of the second quarter 2010, Leslie was a named
defendant in about 1,214 active, unresolved asbestos-related
claims filed in California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts, West
Virginia, Rhode Island, Illinois and 23 other states.
About 672 of these claims involve claimants allegedly suffering
from (or the estates of decedents who allegedly died from)
mesothelioma. In addition to these claims, Leslie remained a named
defendant in about 69 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in
Mississippi. Leslie's asbestos-related claims generally involve
its fluid control products.
During 2007, Los Angeles state court juries rendered two verdicts
that, if allowed to stand, would have resulted in a liability to
Leslie of about US$3.8 million. Although Leslie accrued a
liability during 2007 for each of these verdicts, both verdicts
were appealed and, during November 2009, the California Court of
Appeals issued its final ruling reversing one of the two judgments
against Leslie.
As a result of this ruling, during the fourth quarter of fiscal
2009, the Company reduced the accrued liability associated with
Leslie's asbestos claims by US$1.3 million.
After receiving a favorable ruling from the appellate court on the
second adverse verdict (which initially resulted in an approximate
US$2.5 million award against Leslie), Leslie agreed to a reduced
award of about US$500,000.
Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. provides valves
and fluid control products for the energy, aerospace, and
industrial markets. The Company offers products that allow it to
supply end-users with a wide array of valves, systems and
component products for fluid control.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Leslie Bankruptcy Slated for Aug. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says the Bankruptcy Court scheduled a
hearing for Aug. 9, 2010 on subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc.'s
request for a preliminary injunction that would bar the
prosecution or commencement of asbestos claims until final
approval of a Reorganization Plan, which would permanently channel
such claims to the Trust.
On July 12, 2010, Leslie filed the Bankruptcy Petition and,
simultaneously, filed the Reorganization Plan in an effort to
permanently resolve Leslie's asbestos liability.
Key terms of the pre-negotiated plan include creation of a trust
under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to be funded by
(1) a contribution by Leslie consisting of (a) a US$1 million
promissory note and (b) an assignment of any and all rights of
Leslie (i) to proceeds under existing insurance policies that
provide coverage for Asbestos Personal Injury Claims, and (ii) to
US$2.6 million of proceeds from a settlement agreement between
Leslie and one of its insurers, Continental Casualty, a CNA
company entered into in April 2010; and (2) a US$74 million cash
contribution by the Company.
All current and future asbestos claims against Leslie, as well as
all current and future derivative claims against the Company or
its affiliates or against Leslie's former parent company, Watts
Water Technologies, Inc., or its affiliates arising from Leslie's
alleged asbestos liabilities, will be channeled to the Trust for
review and payment, thus providing both Leslie and the Company
with permanent court protection from such claims.
In addition, Leslie will remain a subsidiary of the Company during
and after Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Reorganization Plan was
negotiated with both a committee of key plaintiff attorneys
representing Leslie's current asbestos claimants, and also with a
proposed independent representative of Leslie's future claimants.
The filing of the Bankruptcy Petition automatically stayed the
prosecution or commencement of all asbestos-related claims against
Leslie. On July 14, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered a
temporary restraining order that bars the prosecution or
commencement of claims against the Company or Watts arising from
Leslie's alleged asbestos liabilities.
The Bankruptcy Court also scheduled a hearing for Aug. 19, 2010 on
Leslie's motions to approve procedures for voting on the proposed
Plan and for approval of a Disclosure Statement that would be sent
to the holders of claims against Leslie to enable them to vote on
the proposed Plan.
Under the Bankruptcy Code, confirmation of the Reorganization Plan
requires the approval of at least 75 percent of current asbestos
claimants as well as court approval. Funding of the Trust would
occur after the final Court approval of the Reorganization Plan.
Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. provides valves
and fluid control products for the energy, aerospace, and
industrial markets. The Company offers products that allow it to
supply end-users with a wide array of valves, systems and
component products for fluid control.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Has $1.6MM Remaining Indemnity at July 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that as of July 4, 2010, it
believes that the aggregate amount of indemnity (on a cash basis)
remaining on subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc.'s primary layer of
asbestos insurance was about US$1.6 million.
However, after giving effect to the Company's accrual for the
estimated indemnity cost of resolving pending claims, Leslie
recorded the maximum amount of available primary layer insurance
as of September 2008. As a result, asbestos related indemnity
costs from that point forward were no longer partially offset by a
corresponding insurance recovery.
However, defense costs, which were recognized as incurred,
continued to be and, but for filing of the Bankruptcy Petition,
would continue to be partially offset by a 36% contribution from
Leslie's remaining primary layer insurance carrier until such time
as the aggregate amount of indemnity claims paid out (on a cash
basis) by the remaining primary layer insurance carrier exceeded
policy limits.
Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. provides valves
and fluid control products for the energy, aerospace, and
industrial markets. The Company offers products that allow it to
supply end-users with a wide array of valves, systems and
component products for fluid control.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spence, Hoke Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller numbers of asbestos-related claims are pending against
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s two other subsidiaries -- Spence, the
stock of which the Company acquired in 1984; and Hoke, the stock
of which the Company acquired in 1998.
No other asbestos matters related to Spence and Hoke were
disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 2, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. provides valves
and fluid control products for the energy, aerospace, and
industrial markets. The Company offers products that allow it to
supply end-users with a wide array of valves, systems and
component products for fluid control.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Remains Party to Aqua-Chem Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company is still disputing former subsidiary Aqua-
Chem, Inc.'s (n/k/a Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.) claims over Aqua-Chem's
demands for about US$10 million for out-of-pocket asbestos
litigation-related expenses.
During the period from 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-Chem.
A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that
contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers.
Several years after the Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem
received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of
some of the gaskets.
In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the Company that it believed
it was obligated for certain costs and expenses associated with
its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that the Company
reimburse it for about US$10 million for out-of-pocket litigation-
related expenses.
Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing
obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses
that are excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or
for which there is no insurance.
The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the
outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of
Aqua-Chem.
In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a
declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16
defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the
parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the
insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in
excess of their obligations.
During the course of the Wisconsin coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem
and the Company reached settlements with several of the insurers,
including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into an escrow
account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims
against Aqua-Chem.
On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final
declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the
parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining
defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed.
The judgment directs that each insurer whose policy is triggered
is jointly and severally liable for one-hundred percent of Aqua-
Chem's losses up to policy limits. The Georgia litigation remains
subject to the stay agreement.
The Coca-Cola Company owns and markets nonalcoholic beverage
brands and is a manufacturer, distributor and marketer of
concentrates and syrups used to produce non-alcoholic beverages.
The Company is based in Atlanta.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Cites $24.13MM June 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liability was
US$24,135,000 as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$24,874,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated Aug.
2, 2010.
The Company's accrued asbestos liabilities of US$24,472,000 as of
March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2010)
Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc.
manufactures engine management and air conditioning replacement
parts for the automotive aftermarket. Customers are auto parts
warehouse distributors (CARQUEST and NAPA) and auto parts
retailers (Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Powers' Remand Bid Affirmed in Case v. Rockwell
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted Dale Powers' motion to remand, in an asbestos case
involving Rockwell Automation, Inc.
The case is styled Dale Powers, Plaintiff v. Allis-Chalmers
Corporation Product Liability Trust, et al., Defendants.
District Judge Claudia Wilken entered judgment in Case No.
10-01921 CW on July 21, 2010.
Mr. Powers worked as an electrician for North American Aviation at
North American Rockwell from 1956 to 1957 and at Hughes Aircraft
Company from 1957 to 1989. He also worked briefly at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., around 1963 or 1964.
His complaint alleged that he was exposed to products containing
asbestos during this time, causing him to develop asbestosis and
asbestos-related pleural disease.
On May 6, 2009, Mr. Powers filed suit in San Francisco Superior
Court alleging personal injury against numerous Defendants,
including Rockwell. From April 5 to April 8, 2010, Mr. Powers was
deposed by Rockwell.
On April 6, 2010, based on Mr. Powers' testimony describing the
use of Rockwell electrical equipment in conjunction with the F-100
aircraft, Rockwell notified Mr. Powers that it intended to remove
the case in order to pursue a military contractor immunity defense
in federal court.
On April 7, 2010, Mr. Powers sent Rockwell a signed declaration
stating that his claims excluded liability for "asbestos exposure
to or on military or federal government aircraft." Based on
Rockwell's judgment that all of the claims against it involved
military or federal government aircraft, it asked Mr. Powers to
dismiss his claims against it. Mr. Powers refused.
On May 4, 2010, Rockwell removed this case. The District Court
granted Mr. Powers' motion to remand. The clerk shall remand the
case to San Francisco Superior Court. The case management
conference scheduled for Sept. 7, 2010, at 2:00 PM was vacated.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reconsideration Motion in Celotex Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, denied a motion for reconsideration filed by Michigan
State University, Prince George's Community College, Rochester
Institute of Technology, The University of Cincinnati, Fairfield
University, and Claremont McKenna College's motion for
reconsideration that was filed on June 29, 2010.
The case is styled In re the Celotex Corporation, Debtor, Michigan
State University, Prince George's Community College, Rochester
Institute of Technology, The University of Cincinnati, Fairfield
University, and Claremont McKenna College, Appellants v. Asbestos
Settlement Trust, Appellee.
District Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich entered judgment in Case
Nos. 8:90-bk-10016-PMG, 8:09-cv-02444-T-EAK on July 20, 2010.
This appeal arose out of the proceedings occurring in the asbestos
mass tort bankruptcy cases of the Celotex Corporation and Carey
Canada, Inc. pending before the Bankruptcy Court.
On Feb. 20, 2009, the Colleges filed a Motion for Leave to pursue
claims against the trustees of the Asbestos Trust, in which they
sought leave to pursue in a non-bankruptcy forum certain claims
for breach of fiduciary duty against the Asbestos Settlement Trust
and the Trustees.
On July 7, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order denying the
Jurisdiction Motion in part finding that it had exclusive
jurisdiction over the Colleges' claims. The Colleges timely filed
a notice of appeal of the Jurisdiction Order to this Court.
On June 14, 2010, this Court entered the Order in which it
dismissed the Appeal on the basis that the Jurisdiction Order was
interlocutory and the requirements for granting the interlocutory
appeal were not present. On June 15, 2009, this Court entered a
final judgment of dismissal of the Appeal.
Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The Clerk of
Court shall return this case to the bankruptcy court.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Umphrey, Coon Case on Legal Fees Ended July 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appellate justices, on July 29, 2010, dismissed an appeal
regarding a legal battle between the Provost Umphrey law firm and
attorney Brent Coon over lawyers' fees garnered from asbestos
litigation, The Southeast Texas Record reports.
In February 2010, the Southeast Texas Record reported that Mr.
Coon, a former Provost Umphrey attorney, successfully petitioned
Judge Milton Shuffield to seal an arbitration award stemming from
a lawsuit over asbestos attorney's fees on the basis that it was
none of the public's concern.
In March 2010, Mr. Coon filed a motion for a new trial, asking
Judge Shuffield to vacate the arbitration award. Mr. Coon claimed
the arbitrator was wrong in awarding fees to PU attorney Bryan
Blevins for his work on asbestos litigation driven by Coon, court
papers show.
PU responded in May 2010 by filing a motion for sanctions,
claiming Mr. Coon failed to answer required interrogatories and
refused to comply with discovery requests.
Judge Shuffield declined to rule on either motion, persuading Mr.
Coon to file a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Court of Appeals in
hope of landing a new trial.
On July 22, 2010, justices issued a memorandum opinion dismissing
Coon's appeal. The court stated, "The appellants, Brent W. Coon,
P.C. and Brent W. Coon, individually, filed a motion to dismiss
this appeal," the opinion states. "The motion is voluntarily made
by the appellants prior to any decision of this Court. No other
party filed notice of appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the
appeal."
Court records show that the case has been officially disposed, as
the parties reached an out-of-court agreement.
Provost Umphrey was represented in part by Orgain, Bell & Tucker
attorney Gary Reger, Esq. Mr. Coon was represented by the Law
Office of Keith Kebodeaux.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 12 Cases Filed During June 14-20 in Madison Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of June 14, 2010 through June 20, 2010, about 12
new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.
These cases are:
-- (Case No. 10-L-620) Donald Bauer of Texas, a maintenance
worker, lineboy gassing airplanes and welder/fabricator,
claims mesothelioma. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., of Simmons,
Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
will represent Mr. Bauer.
-- (Case No. 10-L-627) Joseph Davis Jr. of Louisiana, a
carpenter, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
will represent Mr. Davis.
-- (Case No. 10-L-621) Nekeidra Ellis of Georgia claims her
deceased grandmother, Ellen Carpenter, developed lung cancer
after her work as a carpenter. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent
Mrs. Ellis.
-- (Case No. 10-L-630) Claudine B. Hope of South Carolina claims
her deceased husband, William L. Hope, developed mesothelioma
after his work as an insulator at North Brothers, as a branch
manager at North Brothers and as an area vice president.
Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
Ill., will represent Mrs. Hope.
-- (Case No. 10-L-623) Robert T. and Judith Mooney of Illinois
claim Mr. Mooney developed pleural plaques after his work as
a burner torch helper, radial drill, mill, assembler and
engine tester, utilities helper and utilities operator at
Caterpillar. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Mooneys.
-- (Case No. 10-L-625) Lornalee Rapinchuk of Illinois, a clerk,
production line worker and home health assistant, claims
mesothelioma. W. Brent Copple, Esq., and Myles L. Epperson,
Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Rapinchuk.
-- (Case No. 10-L-631) Douglas L. and Gwenetta E. Robinson of
Illinois claim Mr. Robinson developed pleural plaques after
his work as a laborer at Scott Air Force Base, as a hand
router from, as a machinist at Mitchell Manufacturing, as a
dump truck driver for Paramount Hauling and as a wire drawer
for Laclede Steel Company. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and
Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and
Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Robinsons.
-- (Case No. 10-L-626) Linda Roland-Henderson of Ohio claims her
deceased husband, Louie Henderson Sr., developed lung cancer
after his work as a laborer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry
J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs.
Henderson.
-- (Case No. 10-L-624) Lillard Steele of Ohio, a laborer, claims
lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will represent
Mr. Steele.
-- (Case No. 10-L-629) Shirley Stultz of Indiana claims her
deceased husband, Ronald Stultz, developed mesothelioma after
his work as a machine operator, mechanic, laborer and welder.
John P. Wagner, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
Angelides and Barnerd will represent Mrs. Stultz.
-- (Case No. 10-L-622) Larry Urish of Illinois, a chemical
operator, maintenance pipefitter, welder and oiler, claims
lung cancer. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., and John P. Wagner,
Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Urish.
-- (Case No. 10-L-628) Gary Vogel of Kentucky claims the
deceased John Vogel developed mesothelioma after his work at
Sidney Kline, at Clark Electric, as a member of the U.S.
Navy, as a member of the Naval Ordinance, at Beam and
Colville Realtors and at Al Vogel Constructing. Richard L.
Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and D. Todd Mathews,
Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
Vogel.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Suits Filed in Madison County From June 7-11
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of June 7, 2010 through June 11, 2010, a total of
17 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.
These cases are:
-- (Case No. 10-L-596) Dianna Anderson of South Carolina claims
her deceased husband, Charles A. Anderson, developed
mesothelioma after his work as an electrician for Greenwood
Mills, as a laborer at Greenwood Mills, as a laborer at
Charleston Naval Shipyard, as a laborer at Columbia Nitrogen,
as a laborer at Tennessee Eastman Kodak, as a laborer at
American Enka, as a laborer at Fiber Industries, as a laborer
at Chargeurs, as a laborer at Hercules Chemical, as a laborer
at Georgetown Steel and as a construction worker for
International Paper. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert
Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland
in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Anderson.
-- (Case No. 10-L-599) Clarence Bates of Florida, an electrical
technician, claims mesothelioma. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., and
Sean M. Keane, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Bates.
-- (Case No. 10-L-615) Robert Henry Boone of Tennessee, a member
of the U.S. Navy, a mechanic for Georgianna Service Station,
a mechanic for Morgan Motors, a mechanic for Motor Parts and
Bearings Co., a maintenance worker for Colonia Bakery and a
general maintenance worker for Owens-Corning Fiberglass from,
claims mesothelioma. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert
Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland
in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mr. Boone.
-- (Case No. 10-L-613) Alois Ceplina of Wisconsin, a brick layer
and general laborer, claims mesothelioma. Casey C. Cita,
Esq., and Kelly Battley, Esq., of French and Mudd in St.
Louis, will represent Mr. Ceplina.
-- (Case No. 10-L-605) Arlene Z. and Louis Dempsey of Michigan
claim Mrs. Dempsey developed mesothelioma after her work as a
cashier and general laborer at a meat market, as a secretary
at Bell South Telephone Company, as a clerk, as a self-
employed restaurateur and as a laborer performing residential
construction. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the
Dempseys.
-- (Case No. 10-L-619) Larry and Patricia Diugid of Illinois
claim Mr. Diugid developed mesothelioma after his work as a
mechanic, machinist, operator, truck driver, farm hand and
laborer. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of
Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
Alton, Ill., will represent the Diugids.
-- (Case No. 10-L-609) Patricia Doekes of Arizona claims her
deceased husband, Jan Doekes, developed mesothelioma after
his work as a construction laborer and superintendent. Brian
J. Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent the Doekes.
-- (Case No. 10-L-603) Herbert and Maxine Hansen of Oregon claim
Mr. Hansen developed mesothelioma after his work as a welder
at Oregon Shipbuilding Corporation, as a mechanic for the
U.S. Army, as a mechanic at Willy's Dealer, as a mechanic at
a used car dealership, as a mechanic at Swanson's Garage, as
a plant maintenance man at Richfield Oil, as an assembly line
worker at United Airlines, as a welder at Swan Island, as a
welder at Hallidie Machinery and Equipment, as a truck driver
at Hadley, as a welder for Iron Workers Union Local 433, as a
welder at Walt Disney, as a welding instructor for the city
of Los Angeles and as a welder for Chevron. Randy L. Gori,
Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill.,
will represent the Hansens.
-- (Case No. 10-L-602) Gwendlyn Hart of Ohio claims her deceased
husband, Melvin O. Hart, developed mesothelioma after his
work as a railroad worker and machinist. Andrew O'Brien,
Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq.,
Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald,
Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, will represent Mrs.
Hart.
-- (Case No. 10-L-601) Lorraine Sue Reeves of Arkansas claims
her deceased husband, George A. Reeves, developed lung cancer
after his work as an electrician with Heath and Company, as a
material handler for Essex Wire, as a forklift operator and
molder for Benton Harbor Malleable, as a laborer at Auto
Specialists, as a brake maker at Bendix and as a construction
worker for Asplugh Tree Service. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq.,
and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli
and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs.
Reeves.
-- (Case No. 10-L-610) Melissa Roberts of Georgia, a store
clerk, office staff, waitress, driver and state worker in
welfare and child support enforcement, claims mesothelioma.
Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and D.
Todd Mathews, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will
represent Ms. Roberts.
-- (Case No. A187-088) Debra Schwarz of 2342 63rd St. in Port
Arthur alleges Texas Windstorm Insurance Association denied
her claim for roof, wind, water, structural and foundation
damages caused to her property after Hurricane Ike struck on
Sept. 13, 2008. Gregory F. Cox, Esq., of The Mostyn Law Firm
in Beaumont, Tex., will represent Ms. Schwarz.
-- (Case No. 10-L-597) Darrell Rick Shewcraft of Illinois, a
laborer, claims an asbestos-related cancer. G. Michael
Stewart, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Shewcraft.
-- (Case No. 10-L-612) Llewellyn Smith of Maine alleges his
deceased wife, Dolores Smith, developed mesothelioma after
she was secondarily exposed to asbestos fibers through her
husband, who worked as a millwright at DuPont and a laborer
at South Portland Machine Tool, as a ship fitter at Bath Iron
Works, as a firefighter at the Portland Fire Department, as a
self-employed insulator and as a self-employed home
remodeler. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
represent Mr. Smith.
-- (Case No. 10-L-611) Randy and Barbara Smith of Illinois
allege Mr. Smith developed acute myelogenous leukemia after
his work as a laborer for Bridgestone Americas, Caterpillar
and Nestle. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint,
Esq., D. Todd Mathews, Esq., and Joseph P. Whyte, Esq., of
Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent the Smiths.
-- (Case No. 10-L-604) Sheri Wells of California, a laborer at
an automotive supply store and a shade tree mechanic, claims
mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will be
representing Ms. Wells.
-- (Case No. 10-L-595) Danny R. Williamson of Virginia, a
laborer at Roanoke News Agency and a lot man/certified oil
burner technician at Fuel Oil and Equipment, claims
mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
represent Mr. Williamson.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Suits Filed in Madison County From June 1-4
--------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of June 1, 2010 through June 4, 2010, five new
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.
These cases are:
-- (Case No. 10-L-586) Barbara Bach claims her deceased husband,
Clarence Bach, developed mesothelioma after his work as a
journeyman electrician. Allyson M. Romani, Esq., and Ross B.
Stomel, Esq., of Shrader and Associates in Houston, will
represent Mrs. Bach.
-- (Case No. 10-L-589) John and Mary Daniel of Illinois claim
Mr. Daniel developed mesothelioma after his work as a
boilermaker at Shell Oil and as a boilermaker at various
other locations. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq.,
of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
represent the Daniels.
-- (Case No. 10-L-579) Marlow and Shirley Hammer of Arizona
claim Mr. Hammer developed mesothelioma after his work as a
repairman, welder, mechanic, electrician and laborer. Nate
Mudd, Esq., and Casey C. Cira, Esq., of French and Mudd in
St. Louis, will represent the Hammers.
-- (Case No. 10-L-588) Victoria Karpenko of Michigan, a
waitress, security guard, secretary, realtor and bus driver,
claims mesothelioma. Nate Mudd, Esq., of French and Mudd in
St. Louis, will represent Ms. Karpenko.
-- (Case No. 10-L-585) William and Gladys Woolsey of Missouri
allege Mr. Woolsey developed mesothelioma after his work as
an iron worker. Shrader and Associates will represent the
Woolseys.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lowe Pleads Guilty to False Training in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Appeal reports that on July 29, 2010, Rogelio
Lowe, the owner of a safety consulting company, pleaded guilty to
two counts on issuing fraudulent training certificates for
asbestos workers, Mesothelioma.com reports.
Mr. Lowe, of Thornton, Calif., pleaded guilty to two counts of
mail fraud in federal court.
Mr. Lowe, owner of E&D Environmental Safety Training Inc., failed
to properly train workers in handling asbestos and other hazardous
materials. Between 2007 and 2009, he issued certificates to
students, without providing them with the proper amount of
training.
Mr. Lowe failed to teach courses for the required numbers of
hours, gave students test answers and forged test results. He
would also charge the students, or the students' employers, up to
US$600 per student, for the course.
Mr. Lowe is free on a US$50,000 bond and has had his license to
provide asbestos training suspended. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey
White will sentence Mr. Lowe on Dec. 2, 2010.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Cites $724M Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company recorded non-current asbestos-related
liabilities of US$724 million as of June 30, 2010, compared with
US$734 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press
release dated Aug. 3, 2010.
The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities were US$727
million as of March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter,
May 7, 2010)
The Company recorded non-current asbestos-related insurance
receivables of US$274 million as of June 30, 2010, compared with
US$330 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.
The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$313 million as of March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter,
May 7, 2010)
The Dow Chemical Company's portfolio of specialty chemical,
advanced materials, agrosciences and plastics businesses delivers
technology-based products and solutions to customers in about 160
countries and in high growth sectors like electronics, water,
energy, coatings and agriculture. The Company is based in Midland,
Mich.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Still Facing 550 Cases at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of June 30, 2010, was involved in
about 550 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 3, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company, as of March 31, 2010, faced about 550 asbestos-
related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2010)
The Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many
other corporate defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
At June 30, 2010, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities
of about US$21 million, a significant portion of which relates to
asbestos.
Richmond, Va.-based MeadWestvaco Corporation is a global packaging
company that provides packaging solutions to many of the world's
brands in the healthcare, personal and beauty care, food,
beverage, media and entertainment, home and garden, tobacco and
commercial print industries. Its other business operations serve
the consumer and office products, specialty chemicals, forestry
and real estate markets.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Offshore Still Party to Aaron Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to be involved as a defendant in
the asbestos-related lawsuit styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs.
Phillips 66 Company et al. Circuit Court, Second Judicial
District, Jones County, Miss.
This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course of
their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.
The complaints name as defendants certain TODCO subsidiaries and
certain subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent to whom TODCO may
owe indemnity. The complaints also name other unaffiliated
defendant companies, including companies that allegedly
manufactured drilling-related products containing asbestos that
are the subject of the complaints.
The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each
complaint ranges from about 20 to 70. The complaints allege that
the defendant drilling contractors used asbestos-containing
products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling
operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and
other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act.
The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.
All of these cases were assigned to a special master who has
approved a form of questionnaire to be completed by plaintiffs so
that claims made would be properly served against specific
defendants. About 700 questionnaires were returned and the
remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire reply,
have had their suits dismissed without prejudice.
Of the respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by
TODCO and its former parent that could lead to claims against
either company, even though many of these plaintiffs did not state
in their questionnaire answers that the employment actually
involved exposure to asbestos.
After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming those defendants against whom they had a direct claim as
identified in the questionnaire answers. Defendants not identified
in the amended complaints were dismissed from the plaintiffs'
litigation. To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as a defendant
in their amended complaints.
The Company has not determined which entity would be responsible
for such claims under the Master Separation Agreement between
TODCO and its former parent.
More than three years has passed since the court ordered that
amended complaints be filed by each individual plaintiff, and the
original complaints. No additional plaintiffs have attempted to
name TODCO as a defendant and such actions may now be time-barred.
Houston-based Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water
drilling and marine services to the oil and natural gas
exploration and production industry globally through its Domestic
Offshore, International Offshore, Inland, Domestic Liftboats,
International Liftboats and Delta Towing segments.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. NL Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. is named as a defendant in various lawsuits in
several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by the
Company's former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or
mixed dust.
In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from
working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by
the Company. There are about 1,226 of these types of cases
pending, involving a total of about 2,670 plaintiffs.
In addition, the claims of about 7,500 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts.
The Company does not expect these claims will be re-opened unless
the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-
related claims.
Dallas-based NL Industries, Inc. is primarily a holding company.
The Company operates in the component products industry through
its subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company operates in
the chemicals industry through its non-controlling interest in
Kronos Worldwide, Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corporation Faced 58,920 Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation faced about 58,920 pending asbestos claims as of
June 30, 2010, compared with about 62,360 as of Dec. 31, 2009 and
64,480 as of June 30, 2009.
The Company had about 62,340 pending asbestos claims as of
March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, May 21, 2010)
The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s.
Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified
principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships.
During the second quarter of 2010, the Company received about 740
new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 4,160
claims.
The Company's total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
about US$17.8 million for 2009 and US$15 million for 2008.
New York-based CBS Corporation is comprised of the following
segments: Television, Radio, Outdoor, Interactive and Publishing.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sussex Judge's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at West Sussex Coroner's Court heard that the death of
Judge John Sessions was related to exposure to asbestos during in
his time working for the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom, The
Argus reports.
Judge Sessions first sought medical help in 2009 after becoming
increasingly short of breath. An X-ray indicated he had fluid on
the lungs and a formal diagnosis of mesothelioma was made.
Judge Sessions died on June 16, 2010 at his home in Brooklyn
Cottage, Angmering, England, after an operation and chemotherapy
treatment had "little effect" on the cancer.
West Sussex Coroner's Officer Helen Lawrence said, "He was based
on HMS Leopard as a supplies officer in the 1960s at a time when
many of the fixtures and fittings were being changed and asbestos
was known to be present on many of these vessels."
Coroner for West Sussex Penelope Schofield recorded the verdict of
death from an industrial disease.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justice Ministry Cites GBP5T Payment to Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Kingdom's Ministry of Justice said that a GBP5,000
payment will be made to thousands of workers suffering from
pleural plaques, the Press Association reports.
Critics argued that victims were abandoned by the previous Labour
government after ministers did not change a Law Lords ruling that
prevents sufferers of pleural plaques from claiming compensation.
People who have already started a legal claim for compensation
will be eligible for a payment of GBP5,000. Campaigners have said
that as many as 6,000 people could be affected.
The Ministry of Justice said that sufferers in England and Wales
have until Aug. 1, 2011 to lodge a claim.
Speaking in February 2010, the then justice secretary Jack Straw
said that, on the basis of medical evidence received during the
consultation, the government was unable to conclude that the Law
Lords decision should be changed or that an open-ended
compensation scheme should be set up.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oct. 14 Hearing Set in Action v. Pinski et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Michael P. McCuskey scheduled an Oct. 14, 2010
status hearing in the U.S. District Court in Urbana, Ill., in an
asbestos issue concerning Michael J. Pinski, a Kankakee County
developer, The Daily Journal reports.
On July 29, 2010, Judge McCuskey ruled that the 41-year-old Mr.
Pinski and two others accused of removing asbestos from a Kankakee
building before dumping about 127 bags of the material in Hopkins
Park would not go to trial in August 2010.
Judge McCuskey agreed with a defense request not to have pretrial
hearings for Mr. Pinski; 47-year-old James A. Mikrut of Manteno,
Ill.; and 57-year-old Duane L. "Butch" O'Malley of Bourbonnais,
Ill.
Judge McCuskey, who is chief judge, also nixed the Aug. 16, 2010
trials for the three. All three have pleaded not guilty after
their June 9, 2010 indictments.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R.I. Contractors Fined $25T for NESHAP Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island Airport Corporation and its demolition contractors,
O.R. Colan Associates of Florida, LLC and The Jones Payne Group,
Inc., of Mass., have agreed to pay US$25,000 for alleged
violations of the federal Clean Air Act and National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos, according
to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency press release dated July
26, 2010.
Jones Payne will pay the full amount of the US$25,000 penalty for
its failure to provide EPA with prior written notification of its
intent to demolish 146 residences during a Noise Management
Program and voluntary land acquisition at T.F. Green Airport in
Warwick, R.I.
From September 2004 to December 2008, Respondents demolished 146
residences. Although the demolition or renovation of a single-
family residence is exempt from Asbestos NESHAP requirements, the
exemption does not apply where the demolition is part of a larger
commercial project.
In accordance with federal regulations, as the owner or operator
of a demolition activity, RIAC, Colan and Jones Payne were
required to provide the Administrator with written notice of
intention to demolish or renovate prior to the commencement of the
activity.
Respondents failed to provide EPA with the required notice,
although the State of Rhode Island was notified.
Based on inspections conducted by Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management during the course of the demolition,
other work practice requirements of the Asbestos NESHAP appear to
have been met. No apparent risk was posed to human health or the
environment as a result of the violations.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belcoat Corp. Claim Trial Scheduled for Nov. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in an asbestos case involving Dan Langone, regarding
asbestos issues faced by his company Belcoat Corporation Inc., is
scheduled for Nov. 1, 2010, the Beloit Daily News reports.
A hearing is scheduled for early September 2010 in a legal dispute
between the City of Beloit, Wis., and Mr. Langone who claims a
building he purchased from the City had asbestos issues.
Mr. Langone sued the City because he alleges the City did not
address asbestos issues in a property sold to Belcoat in 1998. The
property is at 1515 Yates Ave. and was the site of the former City
of Beloit Public Works Department.
Mr. Langone contends the City knowingly tried to misdirect him by
making false statements and failed to do due diligence in
performing qualified inspections as was agreed upon in their
contact.
Prior to taking possession of the building, Mr. Langone said an
agreement was passed by the City council that promised to provide
Mr. Langone with a property clean of any and all environmental
conditions and hazardous material.
A letter was reportedly provided to Mr. Langone's attorney
indicating the City's contractor finished removing asbestos before
the sale was finalized in August 1998. According to Mr. Langone,
asbestos reportedly was discovered in November 2008.
Mr. Langone said he hired a firm in February 2009 to conduct a
full investigation that determined significant asbestos was found
in locations including the water pipes.
Mr. Langone's contractor and the City's contractor reportedly
indicated significant differences in their findings, according to
Mr. Langone, who said the city refused to provide information
regarding how the remediation would be conducted. At that time,
Mr. Langone filed suit against the City for breach of contract.
However, the City claims Belcoat's contract claims should be
dismissed because the purchase contract did not require the city
to investigate or remove asbestos-containing building materials,
according to a summary judgment brief filed by City Attorney Tom
Casper.
Even though the City says the purchase agreement did not require
it, the city did remove some asbestos from the property in 2008.
The motion hearing is scheduled for September 2010, which is when
the case could conceivably come to an end, according to Mr.
Casper.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Omaha Police HQ Needs $20MM to Remove Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Police Department in Omaha, Nebr., said it will have to pay
US$20 million to remove asbestos and make other needed upgrades to
its headquarters building, KETV.com reports.
Officials said four of the building's six floors have asbestos.
The officials said it is not breathable, so the building is safe.
The department would still like to remove it, but does not have
the money.
Deputy Chief David Baker said the entire 40-year-old building is
in need of an overhaul.
The department said for now, it will do testing and make long-term
plans to remove the asbestos and refurbish the building. However,
the $20 million price tag is a serious obstacle and so is the
construction timeline of up to four years.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing in Masciarelli Case Slated for Aug. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Masciarielli, a contractor, says that an Aug. 24, 2010 court
hearing is scheduled in an asbestos case involving the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, The Associated
Press reports.
The state Department of Environmental Protection and Mr.
Masciarelli are at odds over how to remove asbestos from the
former TST Pottery Factory.
A DEP spokeswoman says the agency went to court to bar Mr.
Masciarelli from working on the property after he refused to
remove the asbestos properly.
Mr. Masciarelli says he cannot remove the asbestos the way DEP
wants him to because the buildings are crumbling and unsafe for
his crews to enter.
*********
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, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
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 * * *