/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101029.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 29, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 214 Headlines ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend Curtis' ERISA Suit in Tennessee ALTERNATIVE ENTERTAINMENT: Settles FLSA Class Action for $2.33MM AT&T MOBILITY: Accused of Overbilling Calif. Wireless Customers ATHENAHEALTH INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint BANK OF AMERICA: Did Not Enforce 2008 Injunction, Suit Claims CHESAPEAKE LOUISIANA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Lease Suit CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal of Denied Class Certification Pending CONOPCO INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Advertising DIRECTV INC: 11th Cir. Reverses Class Action Decision GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Wellbutrin Suit Loses Class Certification Bid GLOBAL CONNECT: Sued for Misrepresenting Minutes in Phone Cards HALIBURTON CO: Remains a Defendant in "Deepwater Horizon" Suits HALLIBURTON CO: Plaintiffs' Plea Referred to Solicitor General HERALD SUN: Bindi Cole Joins Racial Discrimination Class Action HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Remaining Claims in Allen Suit HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Automotive Filter Suit in Connecticut HORIZON LINES: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending HORIZON LINES: Suit Over Alaska Tradelane Remains Stayed HORIZON LINES: Only Puerto Rice Antitrust Claims Remain HORIZON LINES: Appeal on Dismissed Securities Suit Pending HORIZON LINES: Final Approval Hearing Set for November 18 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suits Against DePuy On the Rise JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Advises Mitigation of DePuy Recall Damages JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces GBP350 Mln Class Action Over DePuy KOHLER CO: Recalls 10 Frameless by-Pass Bath Doors MEMBERWORKS INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Racketeering Suit PEET & CO: Further Defendant Added to Class Action Over Landfill POSSIBILITIES COUNSELING: Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit QUAKER OATS: Claims Narrowed in Chewy Bars Class Suit REFCO INC: Plaintiff Lawyers in Securities Suit Seek $50MM Fee SANFORD BROWN: Plaintiffs in Fraud Suit Seek Class Certification SNAPNAMES.COM: Settles Class Action Lawsuit SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Leonelli" Suit Over AirTran Merger SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Frohman" Suit in Carson City SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Church" Suit in Clark County SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motions to Consolidate Four Suits Pending STRAYER EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Florida SYNGENTA CROP: Seeks Ruling on Atrazine Discovery Order WYNN LAS VEGAS: Sued Over Mandatory Tip Distribution Policy UNITED AIRLINES: Suit Complains About Automated Ticket Kiosks ZYNGA GAME: Faces Third Suit for Invasion of Privacy ZYNGA GAME: Faces Fourth Suit for Invasion of Privacy Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Ind. Records $563MM Settlement at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $3.8MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.658B Net Reserves at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $1.34BB Liabilities at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Unit Still Party to Coverage Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Continues to be Party to Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc, Units Still Party to Claims in Miss. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Goodrich, Units ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $48MM Litigation Costs at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $724MM Sept. 30 NARCO Receivable ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Strikes Deal in Travelers Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 21,326 Unresolved Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix, NARCO Liability at $1.69BB at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Still Involved in AMSF's Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monadnock Waldorf Penalized for AHERA Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Court Reverses Ruling in Robinson Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Posts $15MM Claims Provision at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $841MM for Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Faces 65,441 Open Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Neil Case Still Subject to Appeals in Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Baccus Case v. Crane Settled ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Still Pursuing Appeal in Brewer's Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal on Dennis Woodard Decision Still Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Mulls Appeal in Nelson, Bell Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $75.7MM for Settlement, Defense ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $651.47MM Sept. 30 Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Posts $166MM Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Reserves $54MM at Sept. 30 for Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,400 Open Cases Ongoing Against Chicago Bridge ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suits Still Pending Against Olin Corp. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Quaker Chem. Unit ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Ongoing Against Badger Meter ASBESTOS UPDATE: 510 Lawsuits Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Faces 509 Exposure Actions at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atkins Sues Chevron in Texas Over Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holland-on-Sea Clerk's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gibson Family Seeks Help in Compensation Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roscommon Man's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Brainerd, Jackson Gym Costs $350,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Summary Judgment Bid OK'd in Faddish Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Unit Facing 33 Filter Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. BorgWarner Drop to 17,000 at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Pays $40.7MM for Claims in July 2010 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continental Casualty Case Ongoing v. BorgWarner ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Flowserve Corp. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Reserves $1.13BB for Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Posts $3.7MM CAROs at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boylston Plant Manager Fined for Cleanup Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Edison Summary Judgment OK'd in Lindemann ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Ford Motor's Bid in Anderson Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Yorker Fails to Conduct Proper Inspection ASBESTOS UPDATE: School District Has Grant to Remove Flooring ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Kesteven Dist. Council Issues Safety Advice ********* ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend Curtis' ERISA Suit in Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- Alcoa Inc., continues to defend a class-action suit styled Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-448, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., was filed in November 2006 by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys' fees. Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of Sept. 17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to Sept. 22, 2009. In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial. Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing Sept. 22, 2009 and ending on Oct. 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee, before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge. At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same. Post trial briefing was submitted on Dec.4, 2009; however, no schedule was set for handing down a decision. No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq. 744 Broadway Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: 518-463-7501 Facsimile: 518-463-7502 E-mail: katapano@gmail.com Representing the defendant is: John W. Woods, Jr., Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS 951 East Byrd Street Riverfront Plaza East Tower Richmond, VA 23219-4074 Telephone: 804-788-8629 Facsimile: 804-343-4794 E-mail: jwoods@hunton.com ALTERNATIVE ENTERTAINMENT: Settles FLSA Class Action for $2.33MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Tabakman, writing for Wage & Hour, reports when piece-rate workers work more than 40 hours, the Fair Labor Standards Act has developed a formula for determining and computing their overtime pay. It is first essential, however, to realize that such workers are due overtime and to understand that workers who work "with their hands" such as mechanics or technicians, are entitled to overtime. The failure to comprehend these truisms has been demonstrated in a class action involving satellite television technicians, where a federal judge has just confirmed a $2.33 million settlement in an overtime collective action for such employees in Wisconsin and Michigan. The case is entitled Wilcox v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc. and was filed in the Western District of Wisconsin. The satellite installers claimed overtime and also alleged that their wages suffered improper deductions. The workers claimed that they were paid per installation, which is a piece rate, but when they worked in excess of forty hours, they received no additional compensation. Thus, their theory is not only were they not paid overtime, but there were weeks when they worked so many hours in that particular week that their hourly rate did not even meet the federal minimum wage standard. To add supposed insult to alleged injury, the workers also charge that the Company improperly deducted monies for poor workmanship, lost/stolen property or damage to the property of the homeowner where the satellite dish was being installed. Not only was there no written authorization to do so, but the law in many States is clear that such deductions are illegal (although the employer may take disciplinary action against the offending employee). There are approximately 900 employees who might be involved in the class. Given that figure, the potential liability is/was geometrical, as the settlement shows. Significantly, the judge awarded an attorneys' fees award of $776,666. This is the other big danger in FLSA class actions -- the law is a fee shifting statute, meaning that the employer must pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees, which (as here) is often a large sum. There has been a sharp rise in lawsuits in the cable and satellite industries. The lesson to learn is that technicians or installers or similarly titled employees are non-exempt and if they work in excess of forty hours, they are owed overtime, regardless of the mode of their compensation (e.g. piece-rate, hourly, commission). AT&T MOBILITY: Accused of Overbilling Calif. Wireless Customers --------------------------------------------------------------- Kip Nelson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 10-cv-04802 (N.D. Calif. October 22, 2010), accuses the wireless telecommunications provider of wrongfully assessing interstate services for the funding of the Cal-USF program, thus causing California AT&T customers to be overbilled, in violation of the Communications act, the FCC's Truth in Billing Requirements, and California's Unfair Competition Law. To promote universal telecommunication service in low-income, rural, and other high cost areas, the Federal Communications Communications Commission has created the federal Universal Fund. To fund the Fed-USF, the FCC assesses telecommunications companies' revenues from interstate (and international) telecommunications services. Telecommunications companies pass along these costs via line item charges on their customers' telephone bills. States can implement their own Universal Service programs (within the State only) but cannot rely on or burden the funding of the Fed-USF. Thus, state Universal Service programs can be funded by assessing intrastate services, but cannot be funded by assessing interstate telecommunications services. California has a Universal Service program which is funded by assessing intrastate services only. Mr. Nelson, who pays AT&T a monthly fee to be able to make wireless calls from a cellular telephone to persons within California, to persons in other states, and to persons in other countries, says AT&T overbills its California customers by assessing California end-User Surcharges based on the same telecommunications services revenue streams assessed for the Fed-USF. The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all triable claims, and is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. A.J. De Bartolomeo, Esq. David Stein, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com ajd@girardgibbs.com ds@girardgibbs.com ATHENAHEALTH INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- athenahealth, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint alleging violation of federal securities law, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On March 19, 2010, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company and certain of its current and former officers entitled Casula v. athenahealth, Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-10477. On June 3, 2010, the court appointed Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On Aug. 2, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements through press releases, statements by senior management, and SEC filings. The alleged false and misleading statements concern, among other things, the amortization period for deferred implementation revenues. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, and expenses. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Oct. 1, 2010. athenahealth, Inc. -- http://www.athenahealth.com/-- is a leading provider of Internet-based business services for physician practices. athenahealth's service offerings are based on proprietary web-native practice management and electronic health record (EHR) software, a continuously updated payer knowledge- base, integrated back-office service operations, and automated and live patient communication services. BANK OF AMERICA: Did Not Enforce 2008 Injunction, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action, 15 named plaintiffs claim Attorney General Jerry Brown has refused to enforce a 2008 injunction ordering Bank of America and affiliates to cure their "predatory lending practices" in "hundreds of thousands of unconscionable loans." The homebuyers say Mr. Brown caved in to mortgage lenders, including BofA predecessor Countrywide Home Loans, and "refuses to further enforce flagrant violations of Real Parties in Interest to the Stipulated Judgment." The proposed class in Superior Court covers Californians whose residential mortgages, secured by their homes, are "serviced by Real Parties in Interest because of their purchase of Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., and Spectrum Lending." The Real Parties in Interest include Bank of America, which bought Countrywide and Spectrum after they collapsed, and BofA affiliates. "On or about October 20, 2008, Real Parties in Interest entered into a Stipulated Judgment and Injunction with respondent Edmund G. Brown Jr., attorney general of California . . . acknowledging liability for a scheme of predatory lending practices," according to the complaint. "Which lending practices have resulted in hundreds of thousands of unconscionable loans being provided to person[s] such as petitioners. "The Judgment required substantive acts by the Real Parties in Interest to reverse the foreseeable consequences to the borrowers who had been given the unconscionable loans, including but not limited to loan modifications, reversal of interest, elimination or [sic: recte of] adjustable rate mortgage payment plans (ARM), in exchange for 30 year fixed mortgage. "The Judgment specifically excluded a provisions wherein individuals would have a private right to enforce its terms and the only entity that could enforce the terms and or determine that the Real Parties in Interest were in compliance with the terms of the Judgment were respondent Edmund G. Brown Jr., attorney general. Notwithstanding numerous requests by petitioners and other similar[ly] situated citizens of California, respondent Edmund G. Brown Jr., attorney general, refuses to further enforce the flagrant violations of Real Parties in Interest to the Stipulated Judgment. In particular, Real Parties in Interest in the matter of Farmet vs. Countrywide Home Loans (S.D. Cal. 2009) 2009 WL 189025 successfully argued that Californians had no right to loan term modifications and no private right to enforce said right, notwithstanding the Stipulated Judgment." The Stipulated Judgment and Injunction, signed by Superior Court Judge Richard Wolfe, is attached to the complaint. Plaintiffs in the new complaint are represented by: Moses S. Hall, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MOSES S. HALL 2651 East Chapman Ave. Fullerton, CA 92831 Telephone: (714) 738-4830 They seek writ of mandamus. CHESAPEAKE LOUISIANA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Lease Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on September 29, 2010, granted a motion to the defendants to dismiss in favor of Jones Walker clients, Chesapeake Louisiana L.P., Petrohawk Properties, L.P., Red River Services, LLC, and Delta Lands Exploration, Inc. in the case of HMB Interests, et al. v. Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P., et al. This case was a putative class action brought on behalf of all lessors who entered into mineral leases between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2008, in those parishes in Northwest Louisiana overlying the Haynesville Shale formation. Michael B. Donald, Joshua A. Norris, Nicole M. Duarte and other members of the Jones Walker Houston office represented these natural gas operators and land services companies in this action in which the mineral lessors sought rescission of their oil, gas and mineral leases based on their alleged error as to the possible presence of the Haynesville Shale formation beneath their property. The court agreed with Jones Walker's argument that any such error did not provide a legally sufficient basis for rescission because it did not relate to the "cause" or a "substantial quality" of the mineral leases, which were entered, as noted by the Court, "specifically for the purpose of allowing the Defendants to explore and exploit their land for oil and gas." The Court rejected Plaintiffs' attempts to characterize the Haynesville Shale as something different than what it is -- i.e., "minerals for which Plaintiffs negotiated a mineral lease." Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for error, as well as any claims for "lesion beyond moiety." The Court's substantive ruling in this action follows on the heels of an equally significant procedural ruling in which the Court upheld the existence of jurisdiction over the action under the Class Action Fairness Act, a relatively recent enactment providing for federal jurisdiction over putative class actions in certain circumstances. In that ruling, the court agreed with Jones Walker's arguments that the Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy their burden of proving the existence of an exception to CAFA jurisdiction. Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre L.L.P. -- http://www.joneswalker.com/-- with more than 300 attorneys, provides a comprehensive range of legal services to a national and international corporate client base, many in highly regulated industries through offices in Alabama, Arizona, the District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. Contact: Jill M. Joffrion, Esq. Telephone: 225-248-3575 E-mail: jjoffrion@joneswalker.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal of Denied Class Certification Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the plaintiff on the denial of class certification in a lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., in California remains pending. A lawsuit has been filed against the company in California alleging violations of state laws regarding employee record- keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and related practices with respect to its employees. The case originally sought damages, penalties and attorney's fees on behalf of a purported class of the company's present and former employees. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify the purported class and the California Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, and as a result the action can proceed, if at all, as an action by a single plaintiff. The plaintiff has appealed the court's denial of class certification, and the appeal remains pending. No additional information regarding the matter was disclosed in the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. -- http://www.chipotle.com/-- operates fast casual, fresh Mexican food restaurants serving burritos, tacos, bowls and salads. CONOPCO INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Conopco dba Unilever dba Breyers pushes its "Smooth & Dreamy 1/2 Fat All Natural Ice Cream" as "All Natural," but they contain alkalized cocoa with potassium carbonate, a synthetic ingredient, according to a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint in Denmon-Clark v. Conopco, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-07898 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/26/IceCream.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG 12400 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 392-8801 E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C. 10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 836-6000 E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com - and - Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. Ellen M. Doyle, Esq. STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & CORDES LLC Allegheny Building, 17th Floor 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com edoyle@stemberfeinstein.com DIRECTV INC: 11th Cir. Reverses Class Action Decision ----------------------------------------------------- Barak A. Bassman, Esq., Stephen G. Harvey, Esq., and Laurence Z. Shiekman, Esq., at Pepper Hamilton LLP, report that, as previously reported in the firm's August 9, 2010 Client Alert, "Eleventh Circuit Decision Threatens to Send More Class Actions Back to State Court," on July 19, 2010, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit held in Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., that federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act over a class action asserting state law claims required that, in addition to having minimal diversity (one plaintiff diverse from any defendant), at least 100 class members, and aggregated claims of class members in excess of $5 million, at least one plaintiff must have an individual claim that meets the amount in controversy requirement of at least $75,000. We noted that the holding seemed at odds with CAFA's purpose, which is to provide for federal jurisdiction of putative state law class actions seeking in excess of $5 million, even if (as in many consumer class actions) individual class members' damages were not substantial. Upon further consideration, the same panel of the Eleventh Circuit reconsidered and vacated the decision and replaced it with a new decision on October 15, 2010. In the new decision, the court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the class action because "[t]here is no requirement in a class action brought originally or on removal under CAFA that any individual plaintiff's claim exceed $75,000." With this decision, the Eleventh Circuit comes into line with the other courts that have addressed the issue. The rule should now be clear -- CAFA jurisdiction requires only minimal diversity, at least 100 putative class members, and claims in the aggregate of more than $5 million. The Class Action Reporter covered the 11th Circuit's ruling on July 23, 2010. GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Wellbutrin Suit Loses Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- AboutLawsuits.com reports a federal judge has refused to grant certification for a Wellbutrin class action lawsuit filed on behalf of consumers who were allegedly forced to pay higher prices for the antidepressant due to GlaxoSmithKline's attempts to keep a generic form of the medication off the market. The class action lawsuit over Wellbutrin was brought by the Health & Welfare Plan for the Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 in Mobile, Alabama, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs sought class action status on behalf of all individual consumers and more than 20,000 third-parties, such as health care plans and insurers. The lawsuit claimed that Glaxo was attempting to delay the release of generic Wellbutrin versions through frivolous patent lawsuits against generic drug makers. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel declined to give the lawsuit class action status, saying that it would be impossible for plaintiffs to prove that the class members were financially injured by Glaxo's actions. Judge Stengel determined that it would be impossible to determine which customers would have exhibited brand loyalty to GlaxoSmithKline, meaning that they would continue to buy brand- name Wellbutrin even after generic versions were released. Without being able to determine who would buy generic versions and who would not, the plaintiffs do not have a class action case, he ruled. Wellbutrin (bupropion HCI), which is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was first approved by FDA as an antidepressant in December 1985. The drug was pulled a year later due to the high number of seizures associated with Wellbutrin side effects, but it was reintroduced in 1989 after federal reviewers determined that the seizures were dose specific and lowered the daily dosage of the drug. Wellbutrin has come under closer scrutiny recently after a study published in May in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology suggested that there may be an increased risk of heart birth defects from Wellbutrin when the medication is taken during pregnancy. Researchers found that mothers who were given Wellbutrin in their first trimester had double the chance of giving birth to a child with a congenital heart problem than mothers who did not take the drug. However, they were not able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the drug and the birth defects. GLOBAL CONNECT: Sued for Misrepresenting Minutes in Phone Cards --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Global Connect Telecommunications targets poor people and immigrants by misrepresenting the minutes available and the undisclosed fees on its prepaid phone calling cards, a class action claims in Superior Court. HALIBURTON CO: Remains a Defendant in "Deepwater Horizon" Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company remains a defendant in more than 319 class- action complaints arising out of the incident involving Deepwater Horizon, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. The semi-submersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on April 22, 2010, after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that began on April 20. The Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo/MC252 exploration well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for the lease operator, BP Exploration & Production, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. Crude oil flowing from the well site has spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and has reached the United States Gulf Coast. Efforts to contain the flow of hydrocarbons from the well are being led by the United States government and by BP p.l.c., BP Exploration, and their affiliates. In addition, there were eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result of the Macondo Well incident. The cause of the explosion, fire, and resulting oil spill is being investigated by numerous industry participants, governmental agencies, and Congressional committees. The company performed a variety of services on the Macondo well, including cementing, mud logging, directional drilling, measurement-while-drilling, and rig data acquisition services. The company had completed the cementing of the final production casing string in accordance with BP Exploration's requirements approximately 20 hours prior to the Macondo Well incident. Currently, the company has been named along with other unaffiliated defendants in more than 319 class-action complaints involving pollution damage claims and in 27 suits involving multiple plaintiffs that allege wrongful death and other personal injuries arising out of the Macondo well incident. The majority of these suits are consolidated in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The pollution damage complaints generally allege, among other things, negligence and gross negligence, property damages, and potential economic losses as a result of environmental pollution and generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. The wrongful death and other personal injury complaints generally allege negligence and gross negligence and seek awards of compensatory damages, including unspecified economic damages and punitive damages. The company has retained counsel and are investigating and evaluating the claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted, and the company's respective defenses to all of these claims. The company says that additional lawsuits may be filed against. Halliburton Company -- http://www.halliburton.com/-- provides a variety of services and products to customers in the energy industry related to the exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas. The company serves oil and natural gas companies throughout the world and operates under two segments: the Completion and Production segment, and the Drilling and Evaluation segment. It conducts business worldwide in approximately 70 countries. The business operations of its divisions are organized in four primary geographic regions: North America, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS, and Middle East/Asia. HALLIBURTON CO: Plaintiffs' Plea Referred to Solicitor General -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court has referred to the Solicitor General, The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund's writ of certiorari on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling affirming the denial of class certification in a consolidated suit against Halliburton Company. The Solicitor General will be the one to issue an opinion on whether the Supreme Court should accept the case or not, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection with the company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions were filed against the company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of the company's present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the company in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund v. Halliburton Company, et al. The company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004. In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the company file its motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than the company's Chief Executive Officer. The court ordered that the case proceed against Halliburton and its CEO. In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification, and the company's response was filed in November 2007. The court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008 denying AMSF's motion for class certification. AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to appeal the district court's order denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion. Both parties filed briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in December of 2009. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. On May 13, 2010, AMSF filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. In early October 2010, the Supreme Court neither granted nor denied the Writ of Certiorari but referred it to the Solicitor General for an opinion on whether the Court should accept the case or not. The Solicitor General will confer with interested agencies such as the SEC, meet with the parties, and develop its recommendation, which it will provide to the Court. Then, the Court will decide if it will hear the appeal. Halliburton Company -- http://www.halliburton.com/-- provides a variety of services and products to customers in the energy industry related to the exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas. The company serves oil and natural gas companies throughout the world and operates under two segments: the Completion and Production segment, and the Drilling and Evaluation segment. It conducts business worldwide in approximately 70 countries. The business operations of its divisions are organized in four primary geographic regions: North America, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS, and Middle East/Asia. HERALD SUN: Bindi Cole Joins Racial Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Goya Bennett, writing for The Age, reports Altona North indigenous artist Bindi Cole has joined a class action against Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt over alleged racial discrimination. Ms. Cole is among eight applicants, including former ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark, suing Mr. Bolt, his employer and its Web site. The case, which is listed to be heard in the Federal Court from December 13-17, stemmed from two columns he wrote last year. In the first column, published in the paper in April under the headline "It's so hip to be black" and on his blog under the headline "White is the new black", Mr. Bolt listed light or white- skinned people who identified themselves as Aboriginal and suggested their choosing to do so was proof of "a whole new fashion in academia, the arts and professional activism". Ms. Cole and the other applicants are seeking an order restricting future publication of material containing similar content. They also seek removal of the two columns. The statement of claim sets out the Aboriginal heritage of each applicant, identifies them as having "fairer rather than darker skin," and asserts that each was "reasonably likely to be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated" by Mr. Bolt's writings. Ms. Cole appeared in this newspaper in July after being nominated, for the second time, for the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award. Ms. Cole, who has been told by her lawyer not to speak to the media, lived with her Aboriginal paternal grandmother -- a member of the stolen generations -- from when she was nine to her early teens. On a Tourism Victoria website, she is quoted as saying: "Nan always told me, 'You're Aboriginal and you should always tell people that you are'." Herald and Weekly Times editor-in-chief Phil Gardner said: 'We take this claim very seriously. "However, neither the Herald Sun nor Andrew believe that they have breached the Racial Discrimination Act or acted inappropriately at any time. The Herald Sun and Andrew will vigorously defend free speech and Andrew's right to express opinions." HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Remaining Claims in Allen Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International, Inc., continues to defend the remaining claims in the matter Allen, et al., v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan. Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged by plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit were dismissed with prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million and the maximum aggregate liability for the remaining three claims -- alleging that Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pension benefits of certain employees of a predecessor entity when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan -- was capped at $500 million. Any amounts payable, including the settlement amount, have or will be paid from the company's pension plan. In October 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to the claim regarding the calculation of benefits. The company says it continues to expect to prevail on the remaining claims in light of applicable law and our substantial affirmative defenses, which have not yet been considered fully by the Court. No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. Honeywell International -- http://www.honeywell.com/-- is a Fortune 100 diversified technology and manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell's shares are traded on the New York, London, and Chicago Stock Exchanges. HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Automotive Filter Suit in Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International, Inc., defends a consolidated suit alleging that it engaged in a conspiracy with other filter manufacturers to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers for after-market automotive filters. On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the defendants. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice notified Honeywell on Jan. 21, 2010 that it has officially closed its investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto filters industry. No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. The consolidated lawsuit is S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v. Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 2008-cv-00475 (Conn.) (Arterton, J.). Representing the plaintiffs is: Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. UPDIKE, KELLY & SPELLACY, P.C. One State St., Po Box 231277 Hartford, CT 06123-1277 Telephone: 860-548-2600 E-mail: krcallahan@uks.com HORIZON LINES: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Lines, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint relating to ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the company's October 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 19, 2010. On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping business. Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, 58 purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and other domestic shipping carriers. Each of the Class Action Lawsuits purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean carriers. The complaints allege price- fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. The Class Action Lawsuits were filed in these federal district courts: eight in the Southern District of Florida, five in the Middle District of Florida, 19 in the District of Puerto Rico, 12 in the Northern District of California, three in the Central District of California, one in the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of Washington, one in the District of Hawaii, and one in the District of Alaska. Twenty-five of the Class Action Lawsuits relate to ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes and were consolidated into a MDL proceeding in the Western District of Washington. On March 20, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims in the Hawaii and Guam MDL litigation. On Aug. 18, 2009, the District Court for the Western District of Washington entered an order dismissing, without prejudice, the Hawaii and Guam MDL litigation. In dismissing the complaint, however, the plaintiffs were granted 30 days to amend their complaint. After several extensions, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on May 28, 2010. On July 12, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint. The motion to dismiss is pending. Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated logistics company. The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.- flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia and Puerto Rico. The company also manages a domestic and overseas service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost competitive logistics solutions. Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol HRZ. HORIZON LINES: Suit Over Alaska Tradelane Remains Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action suit against Horizon Lines, Inc., relating to the Alaska tradelane remains stayed. On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping business. Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, 58 purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and other domestic shipping carriers. Each of the Class Action Lawsuits purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean carriers. The complaints allege price- fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. The Class Action Lawsuits were filed in these federal district courts: eight in the Southern District of Florida, five in the Middle District of Florida, 19 in the District of Puerto Rico, 12 in the Northern District of California, three in the Central District of California, one in the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of Washington, one in the District of Hawaii, and one in the District of Alaska. One district court case remains in the District of Alaska, relating to the Alaska tradelane. The company and the plaintiffs have agreed to stay discovery in the Alaska litigation. No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 19, 2010. Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated logistics company. The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.- flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia and Puerto Rico. The company also manages a domestic and overseas service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost competitive logistics solutions. Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol HRZ. HORIZON LINES: Only Puerto Rice Antitrust Claims Remain ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has dismissed all counts in the complaint against Horizon Lines, Inc., except those under Puerto Rico antitrust laws, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 19, 2010. On Oct. 19, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company, other domestic shipping carriers and certain individuals in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The complaint purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals (indirect purchasers) who allege to have paid inflated prices for retail goods imported to Puerto Rico as a result of alleged price- fixing of the defendants in violation of the Sherman Act and various provisions of Puerto Rico law. The purported plaintiffs are seeking treble monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On April 9, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss. The District Court has dismissed all counts in the complaint except those under Puerto Rico antitrust laws. The District Court has certified to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court the question of whether the Puerto Rico antitrust statue applies to interstate commerce. Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated logistics company. The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.- flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia and Puerto Rico. The company also manages a domestic and overseas service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost competitive logistics solutions. Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol HRZ. HORIZON LINES: Appeal on Dismissed Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiff on the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit against Horizon Lines, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 19, 2010. On Dec. 31, 2008, a securities class action lawsuit was filed by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System naming the company and six current and former employees, including the company's Chief Executive Officer, as defendants. The complaint purported to be on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company made material misstatements and omissions in connection with alleged price-fixing in the company's shipping business in Puerto Rico in violation of antitrust laws. The company filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court granted the motion to dismiss on Nov. 13, 2009, with leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Dec. 23, 2009, and the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Feb. 12, 2010. The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted with prejudice on May 18, 2010. On June 15, 2010, the plaintiff appealed the Court's decision to dismiss the amended complaint. Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated logistics company. The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.- flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia and Puerto Rico. The company also manages a domestic and overseas service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost competitive logistics solutions. Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol HRZ. HORIZON LINES: Final Approval Hearing Set for November 18 --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has set a final approval hearing on the settlement agreement resolving a consolidated suit relating to ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane, for Nov. 18, 2010, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 19, 2010. On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena and search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping business. Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, 58 purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and other domestic shipping carriers. Each of the Class Action Lawsuits purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean carriers. The complaints allege price- fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. The Class Action Lawsuits were filed in these federal district courts: eight in the Southern District of Florida, five in the Middle District of Florida, 19 in the District of Puerto Rico, 12 in the Northern District of California, three in the Central District of California, one in the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of Washington, one in the District of Hawaii, and one in the District of Alaska. Thirty-two of the Class Action Lawsuits relate to ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane and were consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation proceeding in the District of Puerto Rico. On June 11, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the named plaintiff class representatives in the Puerto Rico MDL litigation. Under the settlement agreement, the company has agreed to pay $20.0 million and to certain base-rate freezes to resolve claims for alleged antitrust violations in the Puerto Rico tradelane. The company paid $5.0 million into an escrow account and is required to pay an additional $5.0 million into the escrow account by Oct. 10, 2010 pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. The remaining $10.0 million is required to be paid within five business days after final approval of the settlement agreement by the district court. The base-rate freeze component of the settlement agreement provides that class members who have contracts in the Puerto Rico trade with the company as of the effective date of the settlement agreement would have the option, in lieu of receiving cash, to have their "base rates" frozen for a period of two years. The base-rate freeze would run for two years from the expiration of the contract in effect on the effective date of the settlement agreement. All class members would be eligible to share in the $20.0 million cash component, but only contract customers of the company would be eligible to elect the base-rate freeze in lieu of receiving cash. The company has the right to terminate the settlement agreement under certain circumstances. On July 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement in the Puerto Rico MDL litigation. After several hearings, the district court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on July 12, 2010. The settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the Court. Through Oct. 8, 2010, the company has paid $10.0 million into an escrow account and is required to pay the remaining $10.0 million within five business days after final approval of the settlement agreement by the District Court. On Sept. 15, 2010, notices of the Puerto Rico settlement were mailed to class members, who have 60 days to respond. The Court has set Nov. 18, 2010 for a hearing to decide whether the settlement should be finally approved. Some class members may elect to opt-out of the settlement in the response to the class notice they have received. The class members that opt-out of the settlement may bring separate claims against the Company. Horizon Lines, Inc., is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated logistics company. The company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.- flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia and Puerto Rico. The company also manages a domestic and overseas service partner network and provides integrated, reliable and cost competitive logistics solutions. Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in Charlotte, NC, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol HRZ. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suits Against DePuy On the Rise -------------------------------------------------------- Newsome Law Firm reports over a dozen individual and class action lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts across America over DePuy Orthopaedics' defective recalled hip replacement systems. Lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a motion in September 2010 to consolidate the lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation in a New Jersey Federal Court. Depuy attorneys filed an objection to the motion, preferring to stage the trials closer to company headquarters in Indiana, a Wisconsin Law Journal Web site reports. The number of plaintiffs filing claims and/or joining class action lawsuits continues to rise as the recall gains more press coverage. Patients are finding out that they may suffer toxic metal poisoning even if their implant has not yet presented any difficulties. All patients with the DePuy hip replacements implanted between 2003 and 2010 are urged to contact their physician and an attorney to discuss their rights. According to the Spark, DePuy pulled the hip replacement implants off the market near the end of 2009. "The company had stated that their actions were attributed to declining sales, and that they were not recalling the systems," the article reports. However, in August of 2010, DePuy announced a full recall. The devices have demonstrated a failure rate of about 13%. Plaintiffs in many cases allege that DePuy and the FDA knew about the device's defects long before the recall, but they failed to warn patients and continued selling the device. The motion to consolidate the cases into multidistrict legislation is scheduled to hear arguments from both sides on November 18, 2010. If the motion is granted, patients will be allowed to either accept a settlement agreement amount if one is reached. If they choose not to accept the settlement, they still retain the right to have their case tried in the original court in which it was filed. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Advises Mitigation of DePuy Recall Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rottenstein Law Group is advising those affected by the DePuy hip replacement recall to mitigate their damages rather than expect a windfall from litigation. The firm maintains a comprehensive informational Web site at http://www.depuyhipreplacementlawsuit.com/ Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of the Rottenstein Law Group, recommends that any recipient of a recalled replacement hip device manufactured by DePuy Orthopaedics do whatever he or she can to reduce the harm caused by the faulty, recalled implants. "Generally speaking, an injured party has a responsibility to take reasonable actions to minimize the effect of another's wrongdoing, what the law calls 'mitigation of damages.' In this case, that means speaking to a doctor as soon as possible. Putting off necessary treatment will not bring more compensation." In August, DePuy Orthopaedics, a Johnson & Johnson company, announced a global hip replacement recall of two devices: the ASR Hip Resurfacing System and the ASR XL Acetabular System. Each unit replaces a worn or weakened part of the hip. Many orthopedic doctors believe that the units were poorly designed. The implants can generate debris from wear, causing inflammation and tissue damage in recipients. A total of 93,000 persons worldwide had an ASR device implanted. A graphical "snapshot" of the DePuy hip replacement recall can be found at http://www.depuyhipreplacementlawsuit.com/case-snapshot "DePuy Orthopaedics has a history of not taking responsibility for its products," Ms. Rottenstein observed. "For example, even before this incident DePuy had concealed from consumers important information about a knee replacement product it manufactured. Now it has become evident that DePuy again put its profits before the safety of consumers. Hundreds of complaints were lodged with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration before DePuy company recalled the ASR systems." Ms. Rottenstein advises any recipient of a recalled ASR device not only to consult a doctor immediately but also to "document every aspect of both your pain and your treatment. Keep your own notes, in addition to the notes your doctor will take. And do not give information to DePuy or sign any form giving DePuy permission to view your medical records, even if your doctor suggests that you do." Victims of DePuy's malfeasance might find their candid communications to DePuy used as admissions against them in court, warns Ms. Rottenstein. She notes that DePuy has no duty of confidentiality to people who call its "help line," for example, and is free to use any and all information obtained for the company's own benefit in litigation. Ms. Rottenstein also recommends that anyone searching online for a lawyer with whom to discuss the DePuy hip replacement recall read the fine print on a Web site, including any Terms of Use, Disclaimer, and/or Privacy Policy, before submitting any information. Otherwise, she says, the user risks not just agreeing to receive spam and having his or her time wasted while waiting for a case evaluation that might never take place, but also revealing information without the protection of any duty of confidentiality. Ms. Rottenstein recommends that those exploring their legal options with regard to the recalled DePuy implants visit only Web sites operated by actual law firms, such as the Rottenstein Law Group's DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuit Web site at http://www.depuyhipreplacementlawsuit.com/ About The Rottenstein Law Group The Rottenstein Law Group is a New York-based law firm that represents clients in mass tort actions. The firm was recently founded by Rochelle Rottenstein, who has more than two decades of experience as a lawyer, to represent clients in consumer product injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits in a compassionate manner. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces GBP350 Mln Class Action Over DePuy ----------------------------------------------------------- Sify News reports Johnson & Johnson is facing a multi-million- pound legal claim after more than 10,000 patients in Britain were told their hip replacement operations needed to be reversed. Many patients have been in excruciating pain, with some unable to walk since the operation. Now some of those affected are preparing a class action suit against Johnson & Johnson's orthopaedic branch, DePuy, in a case which could cost the company GBP350 million. Over 10,000 patients have been recalled to hospital to have their operations reviewed because components used to cushion and fix the artificial joint were causing tumors and depositing toxic metal in the blood, reports the Daily Mail. Patients receiving the faulty ASR hip implant have experienced agonizing pain as the metal fittings have worn away, releasing the metals chromium and cobalt into the blood, and causing inflammation and benign tumors to form. Experts said although the metals are naturally present within the body, tests showed some patients who had received a DePuy implant had levels which were 100 times higher than normal. In scientific tests, the metals have been linked with cancer, and more than 1,000 people have had their operations reversed to rid their bodies of faulty hip replacements. A letter of claim will be sent to DePuy within weeks, according to solicitors Leigh Day and Co, who are representing 78 patients in a group action against the company. Of those, 34 have already undergone painful revision surgery to remove the implant. KOHLER CO: Recalls 10 Frameless by-Pass Bath Doors -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Kohler Co., of Kohler, Wisc., announced a voluntary recall of about 10 Kohler and Sterling Frameless by-pass bath doors. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The glass doors can shatter, posing a laceration hazard. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves Kohler and Sterling frameless by-pass bath doors. By-pass doors consist of two panels that slide on a track and overlap one another. They can be identified by the tempering date located on the bath door glass panel, which reads "080410" or by the SAU (serial) number on the manufacturer's box. SAU numbers can be found on the white bar code label on the spine of the box below the retail label. The affected door models and SAU numbers are: These Locations Model Number Description Serial Number Only ------------ ----------- ------------- --------------- R702200-L-SHP Kohler Fluence SAU376TBX Lowe's Stores: frameless bath door SAU376TC3 # 1087-Folsom, with Bright Polished Calif Silver finish and # 1538 clear glass - Chantilly, Va. 5425-59DR-G05 Sterling Finesse SAU376MDZ Lowe's Stores: Frameless bath door SAU376MF8 # 526 - with Deep Bronze Asheville finish and clear , N.C. glass # 2338 - Cincinnati, Oh 5425-59N-G69 Sterling Finesse SAU376SS6 Home Depot frameless bath door SAU376SSB Stores: with Nickel metal # 119 - finish and Lake Mist Augusta, Ga. Silk Screen pattern # 4131 - GLASS Lancaster, Pa # 4614 - Virginia Beach, Va. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11705.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and sold through four Lowes and three Home Depot stores nationwide from August 2010 through September 2010 for about $600. Consumers should immediately stop using the doors and contact Kohler for a free replacement door. For more information, contact Kohler Co. at (866) 782-6329 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kohler.com/corp/pr/newscurrent.html MEMBERWORKS INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Racketeering Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a racketeering class action accusing MemberWorks Inc. of tricking people into buying discount club memberships. Lead plaintiffs Preston and Rita Smith and Patricia Sanford claimed that MWI, now called Vertrue Inc., lured them into annual memberships when they purchased certain "bait products," such as Tae-Bo fitness tapes or hair-removal products. MWI telemarketers allegedly told them the company would send them a "risk-free 30-day membership" to Essentials, a service that purportedly offers discounts to Express, Victoria's Secret, TJ Maxx, Pier One and other retailers. After 30 days, the membership was extended to one year, and consumers were automatically billed $72, or $6 per month, if they didn't cancel when they received their membership kits in the mail. The plaintiffs said the membership kits were made to look like junk mail, so consumers would toss them without cancelling. A three-judge panel in Pasadena, Calif., ruled that the Smiths failed to plead their case with enough specificity to survive dismissal. "The Smiths failed to allege which of them made any of the telephone calls to purchase the various bait products and, thus, who was a party to the alleged misrepresentations," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote. He said Sanford lacks standing to pursue the federal complaint, because she "bargained away" all claims in her settlement against MWI in state court. Judge O'Scannlain affirmed dismissal of the Smiths' wire and mail fraud claims, along with their claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Unordered Merchandise Statute, and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. A copy of the Opinion in Sanford, et al. v. MemberWorks, Inc., et al., No. 09-55502 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/glGc6 The Plaintiff-Appellants are represented by: Eric A. Isaacson, Esq. Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Frank J. Janacek, Esq. Christopher Collins, Esq. Amanda M. Frame, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 (800) 449-4900 - and - Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MADDEN, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216-522-9000 - and - Artie Baran, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARTIE BARAN, APC 4545 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (858) 560-5600 E-mail: artieb@baranlawoffices.com The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: Darrel J. Hieber, Esq. Robert J. Herrington, Esq. Jennifer E. LaGrange, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-687-5000 PEET & CO: Further Defendant Added to Class Action Over Landfill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Randall, writing for Cranbourne Leader, reports lawyers for Brookland Greens residents have added a further defendant to the class action over the Stevensons Rd landfill methane gas fiasco. At a directions hearing in the Supreme Court on October 15, claims against Peet and Co Casey Land Syndicate were elevated by law firm Slater and Gordon, joining the four original parties in the City of Casey, the EPA, SITA Australia and LMS Generation. The law firm also expanded its claim against the EPA. Senior associate Manisha Blencowe said the amended statement of claim was necessary because the matter was now going to trial. Ms. Blencowe said the claim against the syndicate related to the buffer zone that had been created around the landfill site at Brookland Greens. The additional claims against the EPA related to alleged failures by the environmental body in exercising its powers to regulate the landfill. The syndicate is the owner and developer of the Brookland Greens Estate. In a statement, the syndicate denied any liability and stated it would "vigorously defend all claims made against it". The Supreme Court sanctioned a split trial to ensure claims would not be held up by disputes between defendants. The parties return to court on December 17. POSSIBILITIES COUNSELING: Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Skelton, staff writer for Sun Journal, reports a Portland law firm filed a class action lawsuit against Possibilities Counseling in Cumberland County Superior Court on Monday and another laid groundwork for its own class action suit in Androscoggin County Superior Court. Greg Hansel of Preti Flaherty said he would ask that his suit against the Auburn mental health agency and its president be moved from Cumberland County to Maine's Business and Consumer Court, which handles large, complex issues. Meanwhile, Adam Taylor of Taylor, McCormack & Frame, also of Portland, sought to use Androscoggin County Superior Court in Auburn, asking for intervenor status for his social work clients in an existing lawsuit against Possibilities Counseling at 1120 Center St. Mr. Taylor said 500-plus therapists and case managers are owed more than $3 million by Possibilities. In what might seem an unusual tact, an attorney for Possibilities' President Wendy Bergeron said she "guardedly welcomes" the Taylor suit. "It will give that group the opportunity to hear with one ear and speak with one voice," said John Geismar at Norman, Hanson & DeTroy. "It's a business arrangement that's gone horribly wrong and the clinicians are stuck in the middle." Mr. Geismar couldn't be reached for comment on the Hansel suit, which was announced just before 5:00 p.m. Monday. Possibilities Counseling worked with hundreds of professionals around the state treating some 10,000 patients. It billed insurance on the behalf of therapists and case managers, with MaineCare its largest client. Possibilities is being sued by Affiliate Funding, a local business that fronted Possibilities payroll funds each week while the state took weeks to reimburse the company. That arrangement ended in August; shortly after, therapists and case managers stopped being paid, most of the Possibilities staff quit and the state stepped in to issue a conditional license. Affiliate Funding is suing for damages, while in a counterclaim in Androscoggin County Superior Court, Ms. Bergeron said it drove her out of business. Last Friday, Mr. Taylor filed the intervenor request on behalf of 56 social service workers. That figure, he said, will keep growing. "We're going to be moving the court at some point in the not too distant future, assuming our (intervenor) motion is granted, to seek collective class action status," he said. Mr. Taylor said no one is owed more than $20,000. Most are owed less than $3,000. A decision on the intervenor request could be weeks away. Lloyd Martin, one of three attorneys at Laskoff & Associates representing Affiliate Funding, declined comment Monday. According to court records, Affiliate Funding, owned by Emile Clavet and Kevin Dean, had a years long arrangement with Bergeron and Possibilities, fronting payroll in exchange for a fee. That relationship soured in August, according to Ms. Bergeron's counterclaim, when she refused to abruptly sell them the business. Affiliate Funding has asked for a receiver to take over Possibilities' books. Ms. Bergeron has asked for an audit of her books and those of Affiliate. Both requests are in front of the court. Mr. Hansel at Preti Flaherty said he initiated his suit on behalf of two Possibilities providers, both of whom live in Cumberland County. "We will seek to consolidate the cases in front of one judge. Then, we will ask the court to certify the case as class action," he said. Mr. Taylor said that having signed on more than one-quarter of the potential class members, he had no plans to alter his own suit. Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Brenda Harvey is heading a forum Thursday night for former Possibilities' affiliates addressing questions such as back pay at the University of Maine at Augusta. The forum is being held in Jewett Hall from 6 to 9:30 p.m. QUAKER OATS: Claims Narrowed in Chewy Bars Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Mark Anstoetter, Esq., and Madeleine McDonough, Esq., at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, writing for the firm's Food & Beverage Litigation Update, Issue No. 369, dated October 22, 2010, report that a federal court in California has dismissed on preemption and standing grounds a number of state-law claims against The Quaker Oats Co. in a lawsuit alleging that the company falsely advertises its Chewy Bars(R)as containing "0 grams trans fat" when the ingredient list labeling includes hydrogenated vegetable oil. Chacanaca v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 10-0502 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., decided October 14, 2010). So ruling, the court lifted a discovery stay order and scheduled a case management conference for December 16, 2010. The Class Action Reporter covered the filing of the lawsuit on Feb. 10, 2010. According to the Food & Beverage Litigation Update, the defendant sought judgment on the pleadings at the outset of the action, arguing that "the doctrines of express preemption, primary jurisdiction, and Article III standing warrant immediate dismissal of the entire case." The court agreed to dismiss all state-law deception claims involving the "0 grams trans fat" statement, the "good source" of calcium and fiber statements and a statement that the product contains whole grain oats but lacks high-fructose corn syrup. According to the court, as pleaded, these claims "seek to impose a requirement in addition to what is mandated by federal statutes and regulations and therefore fail on preemption grounds." Because the plaintiffs had not pleaded they were competitors of Quaker Oats, the court also found that they lacked standing to bring an unfair competition claim under the Lanham Act. The court will allow the plaintiffs to pursue claims pertaining to "the term 'wholesome,' the 'smart choices made easy' declaration [appearing on a decal], and depictions of oats, nuts, and children." The court determined that "[n]either the decal nor the children are appropriately categorized as nutrient content claims, and defendant's contention that the [Nutrition Labeling and Education Act] preempts the charge that they are misleading is without support. The NLEA does not regulate 'front of the box' symbols such as the smart choices decal or the photographs." Because the Food and Drug Administration had not "developed even an informal policy governing or defining the word 'wholesome,'" the court also found that plaintiffs were not preempted from litigating whether this statement was misleading. The court rejected the defendant's contention that the decal, "wholesome" language and depictions should be left to agency consideration under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, finding that "whether or not the 'smart choices made easy' decal, the photographs of oats, nuts, and children in soccer uniforms, or the term 'wholesome' are misleading -- do not entail technical questions or require agency expertise." Also rejected were defendant's arguments that the plaintiffs did not establish injury in fact because they had not alleged any health-related ailment from their consumption of snacks with trans fats, the product statements were non-actionable puffery, or that the plaintiffs failed to plead their claims with sufficient particularity. Among the claims that survived the motion for judgment on the pleadings is that the "smart choices program itself is 'deceitful,' and is a product of an 'industry-funded initiative created by a coalition of market giants.'" The plaintiffs allege that the decal is "'nutritionally suspect' and is designed to make 'highly processed foods appear as healthful as unprocessed foods.'" Shook, Hardy & Bacon attorneys assist food industry clients in developing early assessment procedures that allow for quick evaluation of potential liability and the most appropriate response in the event of suspected product contamination or an alleged food-borne safety outbreak. The firm also counsels food producers on labeling audits and other compliance issues, ranging from recalls to facility inspections, subject to FDA, USDA and FTC regulation. SHB lawyers have served as general counsel for feed, grain, chemical, and fertilizer associations and have testified before state and federal legislative committees on agribusiness issues. For additional information on SHB's Agribusiness & Food Safety capabilities, please contact: Mark Anstoetter, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP Telephone: 816-474-6550 E-mail: manstoetter@shb.com - and - Madeleine McDonough, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP Telephone: 816-474-6550 202-783-8400 E-mail: mmcdonough@shb.com REFCO INC: Plaintiff Lawyers in Securities Suit Seek $50MM Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- David Bario, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports, with the sprawling, five-year-old Refco securities class action beginning to wind down, plaintiffs lawyers are getting ready to start counting their spoils. According to a report from The Am Law Litigation Daily, the lawyers will have plenty to count if their $50 million request for fees and expenses is granted. As the Lit Daily reports, onetime Refco auditor Grant Thornton agreed to settle with plaintiffs in the case for $25 million on Monday, bringing the total recovery for class members to about $405 million. That's a significant haul for lead class counsel Grant & Eisenhofer and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, and in a September 22 filing the firms asked the judge to decide their share: The plaintiffs lawyers requested $40.8 million in fees and $8.5 million in expenses, or about 12% of the class's total recovery. (The Lit Daily says the firms will likely request an additional $4.5 million following approval of the Grant Thornton settlement.) In their fee request, the plaintiffs firms called the Refco case "a prime example of large-scale, highly complex litigation." They added: "One need only peruse the voluminous briefing on the defendants' twelve motions to dismiss, and on lead plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, to see the many difficult questions involved in this case. These include, inter alia, questions concerning the defendants' affirmative defenses to lead plaintiffs' securities act claims; the allegations and evidence as to scienter; and factual and legal disputes relating to reliance and loss causation." James Sabella of Grant & Eisenhofer told the Lit Daily that the firms agreed to a 22% discount on the value of the 133,600 hours they spent on the case because a $149 million settlement with Refco's German bankers was achieved early in the litigation. He said the firm's total recovery for class members represented more than 40% of shareholders' $1 billion in losses. A hearing on the firms' fee request was scheduled for Oct. 27 in Manhattan federal district court. SANFORD BROWN: Plaintiffs in Fraud Suit Seek Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Sanford Brown College and its corporate parent are asking a Madison County judge to certify a class action suit. In the meantime, Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack was set to hear a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint filed by defendants at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 27. Plaintiffs Jenna and Jessica Lilley, Candace Lindsey, Ashley Cunningham and Cassandra Allen propose to lead a class of Sanford Brown students who were allegedly misled about career paths the schools' medical assistant degrees could lead to. The second amended complaint, filed last month, includes claims under the Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, consumer fraud statute, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The proposed class would include all persons who enrolled at the Sanford Brown College in Collinsville in the medical assistant program from July 1, 2003 to the date of certification of the class action. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, restitution of monies paid to the defendants, an injunction barring the defendants from engaging in "unfair, immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous acts," attorney's fees and other relief. A similar class action suit against Sanford Brown was also filed in Missouri. The class certification hearing is set Nov. 15 at 10:00 a.m. The motion to dismiss and the motion for class certification are not available in the scanned documents of the case file at present. The defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint last week. In the motion, the defendants deny the claims. They also offer affirmative defenses including that the plaintiffs are barred by the statutes of limitations, failures to state claims, the voluntary pay doctrine and educational malpractice laws. Sanford Brown and Career Education Corporation, its co-defendant, also have counter claims pending against the lead plaintiffs for unpaid tuition ranging from $588 to nearly $6,000. Corey Sullivan and others represent the plaintiffs. Randall Mullendore and others represents Sanford Brown and Career Education Corporation. The case is Madison case number 08-L-113. SNAPNAMES.COM: Settles Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------- Domain Name Wire reports Snapnames has resolved two outstanding lawsuits related to its bidding scandal. First, the company has resolved its claims with former employee Nelson Brady. Mr. Brady was the sole employee who drove up bids on SnapNames. The settlement will not be made public, but SnapNames parent company Oversee.net said the "financial penalty is appropriate considering the seriousness of the improper activity." Second, the company reached a preliminary settlement in Resmer vs. SnapNames.com. This was originally a U.S. District Court case. Facing problems proving the size of the claims, Stewart Resmer later moved the case. Both Mr. Resmer and the class action lawyers will receive compensation paid by SnapNames. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Leonelli" Suit Over AirTran Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. defends a purported class action lawsuit in connection with its planned acquisition of AirTran Holdings, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On Sept. 26, 2010, Southwest, AirTran, and Guadalupe Holdings Corp. -- Merger Sub -- entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, providing for the acquisition of AirTran by Southwest. On Sept. 28, 2010, Frederick Leonelli filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated stockholders of AirTran in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Carson City against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Arne G. Haak, AirTran's Senior Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran board of directors, Southwest and Merger Sub. The Leonelli complaint generally alleges that the consideration to be received by AirTran's stockholders in the Merger is unfair and inadequate and that the AirTran officers and directors named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement through an unfair and flawed process and by approving certain deal protection mechanisms contained in the Merger Agreement. The Leonelli complaint further alleges that AirTran, Southwest and Merger Sub aided and abetted the individual AirTran defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties to AirTran's stockholders. The Leonelli complaint seeks injunctive relief: (i) enjoining the defendants from consummating the Merger unless AirTran adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price for AirTran's stockholders and discloses all material information to AirTran's stockholders, (ii) directing the individual AirTran defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of AirTran's stockholders, (iii) rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement, including the deal protection devices that may preclude premium competing bids for AirTran, (iv) awarding plaintiff's costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and (v) granting such other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in the United States. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had 537 active Boeing 737 aircraft serving 68 cities in 35 states throughout the United States. The company provides point-to-point service. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company served 437 non-stop city pairs. Approximately 76 % of the company's customers flew non-stop during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, and the company's average aircraft trip stage length in 2009, was 639 miles with an average duration of approximately 1.8 hours. The company's point- to-point route structure includes service to and from many secondary or downtown airports, such as Dallas Love Field, Houston Hobby, Chicago Midway, Baltimore-Washington International, Burbank, Manchester, Oakland, San Jose, Providence, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, and Long Island Islip airports. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Frohman" Suit in Carson City --------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. defends a suit filed by Frank Frohman in connection with its planned acquisition of AirTran Holdings, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On Sept. 26, 2010, Southwest, AirTran, and Guadalupe Holdings Corp. -- Merger Sub -- entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, providing for the acquisition of AirTran by Southwest. On Sept. 28, 2010, Mr. Frohman filed a purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Carson City against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran board of directors, Southwest and Merger Sub. The allegations in the Frohman lawsuit, as well as the relief requested, are generally the same as those in the suit filed by Frederick Leonelli. Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in the United States. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had 537 active Boeing 737 aircraft serving 68 cities in 35 states throughout the United States. The company provides point-to-point service. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company served 437 non-stop city pairs. Approximately 76 % of the company's customers flew non-stop during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, and the company's average aircraft trip stage length in 2009, was 639 miles with an average duration of approximately 1.8 hours. The company's point- to-point route structure includes service to and from many secondary or downtown airports, such as Dallas Love Field, Houston Hobby, Chicago Midway, Baltimore-Washington International, Burbank, Manchester, Oakland, San Jose, Providence, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, and Long Island Islip airports. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends "Church" Suit in Clark County --------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. defends a suit filed by Douglas Church in connection with its planned acquisition of AirTran Holdings, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On Sept. 26, 2010, Southwest, AirTran, and Guadalupe Holdings Corp. -- Merger Sub -- entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, providing for the acquisition of AirTran by Southwest. On Oct. 8, 2010, Douglas Church filed a purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran board of directors, Southwest and Merger Sub. The allegations set forth in the Church lawsuit, as well as the relief requested, are generally the same as those in the suit filed by Frederick Leonelli with one addition. The Church complaint additionally alleges, as part of its breach of fiduciary duty claim, that the individual AirTran defendants received greater benefits under the Merger Agreement than other AirTran shareholders. Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in the United States. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had 537 active Boeing 737 aircraft serving 68 cities in 35 states throughout the United States. The company provides point-to-point service. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company served 437 non-stop city pairs. Approximately 76 % of the company's customers flew non-stop during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, and the company's average aircraft trip stage length in 2009, was 639 miles with an average duration of approximately 1.8 hours. The company's point- to-point route structure includes service to and from many secondary or downtown airports, such as Dallas Love Field, Houston Hobby, Chicago Midway, Baltimore-Washington International, Burbank, Manchester, Oakland, San Jose, Providence, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, and Long Island Islip airports. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motions to Consolidate Four Suits Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to consolidate four suits against Southwest Airlines Co. in Florida are pending, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On Sept. 26, 2010, Southwest, AirTran, and Guadalupe Holdings Corp. -- Merger Sub -- entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, providing for the acquisition of AirTran by Southwest. Four purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida. Harry Hoffner filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated AirTran stockholders on Sept. 30, 2010 against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran board of directors, and Southwest. This was followed by lawsuits filed by Robert Debardelan on Oct. 8, 2010, Thomas A. Rosenberger on Oct. 12, 2010, and Robert Loretitsch on Oct. 15, 2010 against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran board of directors, Southwest and Merger Sub. The allegations in the Florida actions, as well as the relief requested, are also generally the same as those in the suit filed by Frederick Leonelli. The Florida actions is in their preliminary stages. On Oct. 12, 2010, Mr. Rosenberger filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the Hoffner, Debardelan, and Rosenberger actions and appoint Mr. Rosenberger as lead plaintiff and his attorneys as lead plaintiffs' counsel. A counter motion to transfer and consolidate and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' counsel was filed by Messrs. Hoffner and Debardelan on Oct. 19, 2010. Those motions are currently pending. Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in the United States. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had 537 active Boeing 737 aircraft serving 68 cities in 35 states throughout the United States. The company provides point-to-point service. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company served 437 non-stop city pairs. Approximately 76 % of the company's customers flew non-stop during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, and the company's average aircraft trip stage length in 2009, was 639 miles with an average duration of approximately 1.8 hours. The company's point- to-point route structure includes service to and from many secondary or downtown airports, such as Dallas Love Field, Houston Hobby, Chicago Midway, Baltimore-Washington International, Burbank, Manchester, Oakland, San Jose, Providence, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, and Long Island Islip airports. STRAYER EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Florida -------------------------------------------------------- The Shuman Law Firm Monday disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Strayer Education, Inc. during the period between November 1, 2007 and August 13, 2010, inclusive. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had engaged in improper and deceptive recruiting and financial aid lending practices and, due to the government's scrutiny into the for- profit education sector, the Company would be unable to continue these practices in the future; (ii) the Company failed to maintain proper internal controls; (iii) many of the Company's programs were in jeopardy of losing their eligibility for federal financial aid; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements regarding the Company's financial performance and expected earnings were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made. On August 13, 2010, after the market closed, the U.S. Department of Education released data on federal student-loan repayment rates at the nation's colleges and universities. The data showed that repayment rates were 54% at public colleges and 56% at private non-profit institutions, compared to just 36% at for-profit colleges. Specifically, the data showed that the repayment rates at Strayer were just 25%. On this news, the price of Strayer stock dropped 18.37%, or $36.75 per share, from a closing price of $200.01 per share on August 13, 2010 to a closing price of $163.26 per share on August 16, 2010, the following trading day, on a 482% increase in trading volume. If you purchased Strayer common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class no later than December 14, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members. The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative actions. SOURCE: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM Telephone: 866-974-8626 E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com - or - Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM Telephone: 866-974-8626 E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com SYNGENTA CROP: Seeks Ruling on Atrazine Discovery Order ------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for Madison/St. Clair Record, reports Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., a company facing class action lawsuits over its popular weed killer atrazine, is asking a Madison County judge to send constitutional questions to the appellate court. Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder heard arguments over certifying questions related to an order she signed in September that governs what discovery the plaintiffs may take from non-party trade groups such as the Heartland Institute. Heartland and other trade groups are fighting discovery requests issued by attorney Stephen Tillery for his client Holiday Shores Sanitary District in one of a series of proposed class actions filed against the makers and distributors of atrazine. Attorneys for the trade groups asked for clarification of the order at the hearing Monday. Judge Crowder had ruled against Heartland, the Illinois Farm Bureau and others on many of their objections to the discovery requests, requiring the groups to comply with what she told attorneys were discovery requests related only to Syngenta. The trade groups are still working out their questions about which of those requests they must honor. In the order entered Sept. 22, Judge Crowder wrote that she was attempting to balance the third parties' First Amendment concerns with what state law allows the plaintiffs to discover. Holiday Shores and several other Illinois cities propose to lead a class of water providers against Syngenta and other companies, contending that atrazine contaminates their drinking water supplies. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that atrazine is safe in drinking water up to three parts per billion, the plaintiffs claim that even smaller amounts cause health problems. The plaintiffs have not specified to date at what concentrations the alleged problems occur. The defendants deny the claims. Syngenta has tried unsuccessfully to dismiss or stay the Madison County suit pending the outcome of a nearly identical class action suit filed in the U.S. Southern District of Illinois earlier this year. That suit, alleging nearly identical claims, encompasses a class of water providers in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and other states. Syngenta attorney Kurtis Reeg told Judge Crowder that both sides of the aisle had different readings of her Sept. 22 order, particularly on what protections the defendant and non-parties had under the First Amendment's freedom of association protection. "The issue is not whether the court was right or wrong in what it did," Mr. Reeg said. "We're asking you to certify the legality and constitutionality of these kinds of discovery evidence." Mr. Reeg mentioned specifically donations and lobbying communications in his argument. Syngenta's motion asking Judge Crowder to certify the appeal includes 10 questions. Mr. Reeg told Judge Crowder that once the appellate court resolves the constitutional issues, the six year-old litigation would proceed faster to its end. Mr. Tillery dismissed Mr. Reeg's arguments about the appeal speeding the end of the suit and argued that the entire notion of appealing Crowder's discovery order was out of place. "I would like someone to stand up and say how determination of this issue is going to materially advance the termination of this litigation," Mr. Tillery said. Mr. Tillery argued the defendant had not produced a required privilege log and that without it, the appellate court would not be able to make a ruling anyway. Therefore, Mr. Tillery said, Syngenta was entitled to take a trip to Mount Vernon. "They've just ignored presenting law," he said. "They've waived it." Mr. Reeg countered that a privilege log was not necessary, with Crowder interrupting to agree. "Frighteningly, Mr. Mr. Reeg, we interpreted that the same way," Crowder said. After the beginning of the arguments on the motions to clarify the September order, Judge Crowder told attorneys she thought she had been clear as to what the order covered. "This court never had any intention of requiring these groups to disclose any information about anybody but Syngenta," Judge Crowder said. "I find it puzzling that you guys are telling me you don't understand that order. I very much took serious consideration of the First Amendment issues but this is a lawsuit and Syngenta is involved. Anything that deals with Syngenta that you guys have is discoverable." Attorney Edward Dwyer, representing two chemical trade groups subpoenaed by Mr. Tillery, answered by reading what he said were contradictory parts of her order. Mr. Dwyer went to ask for specifics related to his clients, at which point Crowder addressed all of the non-party attorneys present. "If you gave it to Syngenta, then Mr. Tillery gets to see," the judge said. Christopher Byron, representing the Illinois Farm Bureau, also questioned Crowder about the order and how it specifically related to his client's communications about atrazine that did not necessarily relate to Syngenta. Mr. Tillery told Judge Crowder they were one in the same. "Where is it that they have a First Amendment right to atrazine," Mr. Tillery said. "If it relates to atrazine it's relevant." Judge Crowder reiterated what she said she believed her order covered. She suggested that Byron meet with Mr. Tillery to discuss how the Farm Bureau could comply and if needed, the two could set another hearing date. Judge Crowder took the appeals questions under advisement and gave all the parties present two days to file supplement materials. Mr. Tillery, whose team represents the plaintiffs in all of the Madison County atrazine suits, represents those plaintiffs as well. The Madison County Syngenta case has progressed farther than the other five cases because the company is the primary maker of atrazine. The 2004 atrazine suits had been stalled until last year when discovery began proceeding. Judge Crowder has refereed a number of discovery disputes in the Syngenta case to date although the case should have joined the other five atrazine cases on Circuit Judge Daniel Stack's docket. Stack took over Judge Crowder's docket when she took over his asbestos cases in August. Stack presides over all of the other pending atrazine cases currently. Mr. Dwyer and Jennifer Martin of Hodge Dwyer & Driver of Springfield represent both the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association and Chemical Council of Illinois. Ray Bell represents the Heartland Institute. The case is Madison case number 04-L-710. The atrazine case numbers are 04-L-708 to 04-L-713. WYNN LAS VEGAS: Sued Over Mandatory Tip Distribution Policy ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Wynn Las Vegas forces its service workers to share tips with management, in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, a class action claims in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Carter, et al. v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-01868 (D. Nev.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/26/WynnLasVegas.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kathy A. McCarthy, Esq. Robert C. Carlson, Esq. Megan K. Dorsey, Esq. KOELLER, NEBEKER, CARLSON & HALUCK, LLP 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 500 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 853-5500 - and - Jon Mower, Esq. MOWER, CARREON & DESAI, LLP 8001 Irvine Center Drive, #1450 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 474-3004 UNITED AIRLINES: Suit Complains About Automated Ticket Kiosks ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that United Airlines automated ticket kiosks are not accessible to the blind in California airports, the National Federation of the Blind claims in a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint in National Federation of the Blind, et, al. v. United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04816 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/26/UnitedAirlines.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence W. Paradis, Esq. Kevin Knestrick, Esq. Karla Gilbride, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Third Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 - and - Daniel F. Goldstein, Esq. Gregory P. Care, Esq. BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP 120 E. Baltimore St., Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 ZYNGA GAME: Faces Third Suit for Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------- Valerie Gudac, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04793 (N.D. Calif. October 22, 2010), accuses the San Francisco, Calif.-based social game developer of transmitting Plaintiffs' and other class members' personally-identifiable information -- specifically, their personal Facebook IDs -- to third party advertisers and web tracking companies, in violation of Zynga's own private policy, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and various state and federal laws. Ms. Gudac says Zynga harvests personally- identifiable information through the application programs it enables Facebook members to play while on Facebook's site. Ms. Gudac relates that he information that Zynga "surreptitiously takes and forwards from Plaintiffs and other Class members can readily, yet illegally, be linked and shared with data brokers and advertisers to create comprehensive personal profiles." Ms. Gudac adds that these profiles are made without consumers' knowledge and consent and "go far beyond Zynga's privacy disclosures and assurances." Ms. Gudac is a resident of Fort Myers, Florida. During the relevant time period, she used one or more of Zynga's Facebook applications. The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and are represented by: Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Patrick H. Moran, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B. Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Email: gregorek@whafh.com manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com moran@whafh.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 E-mail: levitt@whafh.com aronowitz@whafh.com - and - William J. Doyle II, Esq. John A. Lowther, Esq. DOYLE LOWTHER LLP 9466 Black Mountain Road, Suite 210 San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (619) 573-1700 E-mail: bill@doylelowther.com john@doylelowther.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP 9466 Black Mountain Road, Suite 225 San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 E-mail: alan@clgca.com Coverage of Graf v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04680 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Tues., October 26, 2010; and coverage of Albini v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04732 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Wednesday, October 27, 2010. ZYNGA GAME: Faces Fourth Suit for Invasion of Privacy ----------------------------------------------------- Howard L. Schreiber, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04794 (N.D. Calif. October 22, 2010), accuses Zynga, one of the world's biggest providers for social networking Web sites including Facebook, of sharing its users' personally-identifiable information, including sensitive information as users' real names with Zynga's advertising partners, in violation of Zynga's own privacy policy, its agreement with Facebook, Inc., its promises to users, accepted industry standards, and state and federal law. Mr. Schreiber says Zynga shared its users' personally-identifiable information without its users' knowledge or consent. Mr. Schreiber, a resident of Long Beach, New York, is a registered user of Zynga's services. During the relevant time period, Mr. Schreiber used an application owned and operated by Zynga on the social networking site, Facebook. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 10960 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 477-2244 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. David R. Buchanan, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP One William Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. BONI & ZACK, LLP 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com - and - Eric D. Freed, Esq. FREED & WEISS LLC 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 220-0000 E-mail: eric@freedweiss.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 45 West Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone: (215) 230-8043 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com Coverage of Graf v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04680 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Tues., October 26, 2010; coverage of Albini v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04732 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Wednesday, October 27, 2010; and coverage of Gudac v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04793 (N.D. Calif.), appears in today's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Ind. Records $563MM Settlement at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc.'s current asbestos settlement was US$563 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$534 million as of Sept. 30, 2009, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 21, 2010. The Company's current asbestos settlement amounted to US$545 million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$514 million as of June 30, 2009, according to a Company press release dated July 15, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, July 23, 2010) Net asbestos settlement was US$3 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009. Net asbestos settlement was US$9 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$10 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries, Inc., makes coatings and specialty products. The Company serves customers in industrial, transportation, consumer products, and construction markets and aftermarkets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $3.8MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. recorded net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related costs of US$3.8 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$22.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 21, 2010. The Company recorded net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related costs of US$7.8 million during the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$23.4 million during the three months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) The Company recorded net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related costs of US$24.1 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$94.5 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance was US$500 million as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's long-term asbestos-related contingencies were US$1.7 billion as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.658B Net Reserves at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc. recorded net asbestos-related reserves of US$2.658 billion during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Oct. 21, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded net asbestos-related reserves of US$2.593 billion. Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property casualty insurance for auto, home and business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $1.34BB Liabilities at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$1.343 billion as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$1.040 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 22, 2010. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$1.543 billion as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$830 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$941 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities were US$854 million as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and landing systems). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Unit Still Party to Coverage Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers Property Casualty Corp., is still involved in asbestos-related insurance lawsuits that are pending in various courts. In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against TPC and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va. The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions. In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims. The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations. Notwithstanding the injunction, additional common law claims were filed against TPC. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-sum payment of up to US$412 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future Common Law Claims against TPC. This settlement requires a payment of up to US$90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. Among the contingencies for each of these settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the bankruptcy court (1986 Orders). On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (Clarifying Order). On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order while vacating that portion of the order that required all future direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before proceeding in state or federal court. Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006 ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the Clarifying Order. On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which were denied. TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted. On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC, reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision, finding that the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially all Common Law Claims against TPC. On Oct. 21, 2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the order approving the settlement, and that request was granted. On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by that objector against TPC. On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit, requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was denied on May 25, 2010. On Aug. 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion, and a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from the Supreme Court requiring the Second Circuit to comply with the Supreme Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in TPC's favor. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the Petitions. The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy court on Sept. 2, 2010 and Sept. 3, 2010, respectively, arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been met and seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts. On Sept. 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs' Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion. A hearing on the Motions to Compel was scheduled for Oct. 21, 2010. SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in Texas state court asserting common law claims. All such cases that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court. Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property casualty insurance for auto, home and business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Continues to be Party to Injury Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Like many other industrial companies in recent years, Lockheed Martin Corporation 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. A substantial majority of the asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin Corporation is a global security company that 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: Ensco plc, Units Still Party to Claims in Miss. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ensco plc and certain current and former subsidiaries continue to be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Mississippi courts. During 2004, the Company and certain current and former subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other third-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi. The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986. In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims. As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs. Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a result of their removal from state court. To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken place in eight cases involving the Company. While several cases have been selected for trial during 2010 and 2011, none of the cases pending against the Company in Mississippi state court are included within those selected cases. In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has two other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against it in litigation in other jurisdictions. Headquartered in London, Ensco plc is an offshore drilling contractor. The Company owns a fleet of 45 offshore rigs, including 40 jack-ups, one barge rig, and four ultra-deepwater semisubmersible (capable of drilling in up to 8,500 feet of water). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Goodrich, Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries still face various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at its facilities, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 21, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by the court. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corporation supplies aerospace components, systems and services to the commercial and general aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies systems and products to the global defense and space markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $48MM Litigation Costs at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s asbestos-related litigation charges, net of insurance, amounted to US$48 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$36 million during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009. The Company recorded asbestos-related litigation charges, net of insurance, of US$49 million during the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$37 million during the three months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges, net of insurance, amounted to US$135 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$111 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. Like many other industrial companies, the Company is a defendant in personal injury actions related to asbestos. The Company did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation products or other construction materials that have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vast majority of claimants. Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the Company or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into two general categories: refractory products and friction products. Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and landing systems). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $724MM Sept. 30 NARCO Receivable ----------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s consolidated financial statements reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future North American Refractories Company-related asbestos claims of US$724 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, and US$831 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims of US$816 million as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that were sold largely to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less than 2% of NARCO'S products contained asbestos. When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against the Company. The stay has remained in effect continuously since Jan. 4, 2002. In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO with up to US$20 million in financing. The Company also agreed to pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent company upon the filing of a plan of reorganization for NARCO acceptable to Honeywell (which amount was paid in December 2005 following the filing of NARCO's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parent company US$40 million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCO indebtedness to the Company, upon the effective date of the plan of reorganization. In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the 524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and Honeywell. In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008. In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is fully briefed, oral argument took place on May 21, 2009, and the matter was submitted for decision. In connection with the settlement of an insurance coverage litigation matter, the insurer appellants withdrew their appeal regarding the NARCO Plan. On Aug. 3, 2010 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order formally dismissing the NARCO appeal. The NARCO Plan of Reorganization cannot become effective, however, until the resolution of an appeal of the Chapter 11 proceedings of NARCO affiliates. The Third Circuit reheard this appeal en banc on Oct. 13, 2010. The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO- related asbestos claims of US$1.126 billion as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$1.128 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection. Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current claims have been made. About US$100 million of payments due under these settlements is due only upon establishment of the NARCO trust. Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and landing systems). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Strikes Deal in Travelers Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc., in July 2010, entered into a settlement agreement resolving all asbestos coverage issues with certain plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company. In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers filed a lawsuit against the Company and other insurance carriers in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, disputing obligations for North American Refractories Company-related asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance carriers. About US$200 million of unsettled coverage under these policies is included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at Sept. 30, 2010. In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed on a critical choice of law issue concerning the appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related asbestos liabilities to triggered policies. The plaintiffs appealed and the trial court's ruling was upheld by the intermediate appellate court in the second quarter of 2009. Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009. A related New Jersey action brought by the Company has been dismissed, but all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been preserved in the New York action. Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and landing systems). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 21,326 Unresolved Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction material business had 21,326 unresolved asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010 and 19,940 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Bendix faced 21,359 unresolved asbestos claims during the six months ended June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, Bendix recorded 1,964 claims filed and 578 claims resolved and reactivated. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, Bendix recorded 2,697 claims filed and 34,708 claims resolved and reactivated. The Company's Bendix friction materials business manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Existing and potential claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. From 1981 through Sept. 30, 2010, the Company has resolved about 154,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. The Company had 130 trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 17 trials resulting in adverse verdicts. Four of these adverse verdicts were reversed on appeal, five verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three claims were settled and the remaining five have been or will be appealed. The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix related asbestos claims of US$589 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$566 million at Dec. 31, 2009. The Company currently has about US$1.9 million of insurance coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$146 at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$172 million at Dec. 31, 2009 are reflected as receivables in its consolidated balance sheet. Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and landing systems). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix, NARCO Liability at $1.69BB at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$1.715 billion in total asbestos-related liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$1.694 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009. Of the US$1.706 billion as of Sept. 30, 2010, about US$589 million related to the Company's Bendix friction material business and US$1.126 billion related to the Company's former unit, North American Refractories Company. The Company's insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities were US$870 million as of June 30, 2010 and US$1.003 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009. Of the US$870 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, about US$146 million related to Bendix and US$724 million related to NARCO. Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is a diverse industrial conglomerate, with four segments; the largest include Automation and Control (HVAC and manufacturing process products) and Aerospace (turbo engines, and flight safety and landing systems). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Still Involved in AMSF's Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company continues to be involved in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund's litigation, which involves asbestos- related matters. In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an investigation in connection with the Company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, about 20 similar class actions were filed against the Company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of the Company's present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the Company in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund v. Halliburton Company, et al. The Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004. In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by the Company, including that it failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than the Company's Chief Executive Officer. The court ordered that the case proceed against the CEO and the Company. In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification, and the Company's response was filed in November 2007. The court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008 denying AMSF's motion for class certification. AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to appeal the district court's order denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion. Both parties filed briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in December 2009. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. On May 13, 2010, AMSF filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. In early October 2010, the Supreme Court neither granted nor denied the Writ of Certiorari but referred it to the Solicitor General for an opinion on whether the Court should accept the case or not. The Solicitor General will confer with interested agencies such as the SEC, meet with the parties, and develop its recommendation, which it will provide to the Court. Then, the Court will decide if it will hear the appeal. As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had not accrued any amounts related to this matter. Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Company operates in two segments: Drilling and Evaluation and Completion and Production. Services include providing production optimization, drilling evaluation, fluid services, and oilfield drilling software and consulting. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monadnock Waldorf Penalized for AHERA Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Monadnock Waldorf School, a private school in Keene, N.H., will pay a cash penalty and make changes in its operations to settle U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claims that it violated federal asbestos management laws, according to an EPA press release dated Oct. 21, 2010. According to EPA, officials from the Monadnock Waldorf School did not develop appropriate asbestos management plans or properly notify the school community about the condition of asbestos within the two buildings they occupy, violating the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, a part of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. Monadnock operates its administration office and an elementary school at one location in Keene, and has a nursery school and kindergarten at another location. EPA learned of the violations during a May 2008 inspection that is part of an ongoing effort to get schools in New England to come into compliance with asbestos management regulations. Specifically, EPA found that Monadnock failed to develop asbestos management plans and failed to provide written notification to parents, teachers, and employee organizations of the availability of such plans on an annual basis. Under the settlement, Monadnock's penalty, initially set at US$12,573, was reduced by US$3,906 for work the school completed after EPA's 2008 inspection to come into compliance with asbestos regulations. In addition, Monadnock will conduct more work, estimated to cost US$7,200, to address compliance issues in the future. Monadnock has paid the remaining US$1,467 as a monetary penalty. AHERA allows EPA to deduct the cost of compliance from the penalty. Although the Monadnock Waldorf School had performed asbestos abatement work in the past, and may have believed that its school buildings were asbestos free, historical data indicates that small amounts of asbestos-containing building materials may still be found at the school. AHERA requires schools to properly manage any asbestos-containing materials present in school buildings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Court Reverses Ruling in Robinson Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc. says that, on Oct. 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04- 00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-related case against Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., a Company subsidiary. The lower court decision was based on a change to Texas corporate successor liability law enacted in June 2003 by the Texas legislature, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2010. The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the Texas legislation was enacted in June of 2003. The Company said it believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003. Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. manufactures consumer packaging; steel and aluminum food and beverage cans, and related packaging. Its portfolio includes aerosol cans and various metal closures marketed under brands Liftoff, SuperEnd, and Easylift, as well as specialty packaging, such as novelty containers and industrial cans. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Posts $15MM Claims Provision at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc. recorded US$15 million as provision for asbestos during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2010. Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. manufactures consumer packaging; steel and aluminum food and beverage cans, and related packaging. Its portfolio includes aerosol cans and various metal closures marketed under brands Liftoff, SuperEnd, and Easylift, as well as specialty packaging, such as novelty containers and industrial cans. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $841MM for Claims at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s long-term asbestos litigation reserve was US$841 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$956 million as of Sept. 30, 2009, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 26, 2010. Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was US$855 million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$828 million as of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$459 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$510 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$463 million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$464 million as of June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemicals and technologies. Its chemistry is used every day in applications from automotive, food and beverages, personal care products, pharmaceuticals, and paper and tissue to durable goods and infrastructure, including building and construction, energy and water treatment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Faces 65,441 Open Claims at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. faced 65,441 asbestos-related claims during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 70,282 claims during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company faced 65,352 pending asbestos-related claims during the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared with 71,420 claims during the three months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 981 new claims, 337 settlements, 554 dismissals, and one MARDOC claim. During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 696 new claims, 275 settlements, and 1,559 dismissals. Of the 65,441 pending claims as of Sept. 30, 2010, about 23,300 claims were pending in New York, about 14,200 claims were pending in Mississippi, about 10,000 claims were pending in Texas and about 3,000 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of US$2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, about two years after the adverse verdict, in the Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. The second payment in the amount of US$20,000 was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles on April 21, 2009. Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Neil Case Still Subject to Appeals in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. says the Patrick O'Neil asbestos claim in Los Angeles is currently subject to further appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court of California. During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008, the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. One of these cases, the O'Neil case was reversed on appeal. The Supreme Court accepted review of the matter by order dated Dec. 23, 2009. Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Baccus Case v. Crane Settled --------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. says the James Baccus asbestos case was concluded by settlement in the fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of the Company's appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, with compensatory damages of US$2.45 million and additional damages of US$11.9 million. The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Jan. 5, 2009. Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Still Pursuing Appeal in Brewer's Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. is continuing to pursue an appeal in the Chief Brewer asbestos claim, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles. The amount of the judgment entered was US$680,000 plus interest and costs. Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal on Dennis Woodard Decision Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. says the plaintiffs' appeal of a ruling in the Dennis Woodard asbestos is still pending. On Feb. 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles. The jury found that the Company was responsible for 0.5% of plaintiffs' damages of US$16.93 million. However, based on California court rules on allocation and damages, judgment was entered against the Company for US$1.65 million, plus costs. Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009, the court advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment was entered in favor of the Company. Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Mulls Appeal in Nelson, Bell Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. may pursue all available rights to appeal the verdicts in the James Nelson and Larry Bell asbestos claims, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26, 2010. On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a US$14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share of a US$3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. Both the Company and the plaintiffs have filed post-trial motions, and judgment will be entered after those motions are resolved. Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $75.7MM for Settlement, Defense ----------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s gross asbestos-related settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) were US$75.7 million for the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$86.1 million for the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2009. The asbestos-related gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company totaled US52 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and US$59.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the nine-month periods ended Sept. 30, 2010 and 2009 totaled a US$43.7 million net payment and a US$34.8 million net payment, (reflecting the receipt of US$14.5 million in 2009 for full policy buyout from Highlands Insurance Company), respectively. Cumulatively through Sept. 30, 2010, the Company has resolved (by settlement or dismissal) about 67,000 claims, not including the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurred by the Company and its insurance carriers is about US$264 million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of US$3,942. Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $651.47MM Sept. 30 Liability --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos-related liability was US$651,476,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$720,713,000, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$672,848,000 as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) The Company's current asbestos-liability was US$100,300,000 as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's long-term asbestos-insurance receivable was US$187,420,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$213,004,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009. Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, were US$16,167,000 during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$22,253,000 during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2009. Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Posts $166MM Liability at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability amounted to US$166 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$205 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. The Company's current asbestos-related liability amounted to US$13 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$12 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. The Company's asbestos liability was US$168 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$208 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010). The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to asbestos. Additionally, the Company has received claims for asbestos exposure that have not been litigated. The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and it has recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. Omaha, Nebr.-based Union Pacific Corporation's Union Pacific Railroad is a rail freight carrier. Union Pacific Railroad transports coal, chemicals, industrial products, and other bulk freight over a system of more than 32,000 route miles in 23 states in the western two-thirds of the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Reserves $54MM at Sept. 30 for Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, had reserved US$54 million in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$49 million at Dec. 31, 2009. Generation had reserved about US$53 million at June 30, 2010 in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) As of Sept. 30, 2010, about US$17 million of this amount related to 190 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining US$37 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos- related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050 based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is necessary. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, Generation increased its reserve by about US$5 million, primarily due to an increase in forecasted claims. Updates to this reserve in 2009 did not result in material adjustments. Headquartered in Chicago, Exelon Corporation distributes electricity to 5.4 million customers in northern Illinois (including Chicago) and southeastern Pennsylvania (including Philadelphia) through subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison and PECO Energy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,400 Open Cases Ongoing Against Chicago Bridge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., as of Sept. 30, 2010, faced about 1,400 pending asbestos-related claims. The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Through Sept. 30, 2010, the Company has been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 5,000 plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 3,600 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. Through Sept. 30, 2010, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim. At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had accrued about US$2.8 million for liability and related expenses. The Company, at June 30, 2010, had accrued about US$2.5 million for asbestos liability and related expenses. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) Headquartered in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an engineering and construction company that designs and constructs energy infrastructure projects such as liquefied natural gas storage, petrochemical and gas processing plants, and heat transfer equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suits Still Pending Against Olin Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to be defendants in various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities. No other asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Clayton, Mo., Olin Corporation is a manufacturer concentrated in two business segments: Chlor Alkali Products and Winchester. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Quaker Chem. Unit --------------------------------------------------------------- An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and 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 overwhelming 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 of which was received in the first quarter of 2010. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only 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% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. Headquartered in Conshohocken, Pa., Quaker Chemical Corporation 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: FirstEnergy Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy Corp.'s normal business operations pending against it and its subsidiaries. No further asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The Company's domestic power plants have a total generating capacity of more than 14,170 MW, most generated by coal-fired plants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Ongoing Against Badger Meter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc. has been named as a defendant in numerous multi-claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or sold with a very limited number of the Company's products. No other asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Milwaukee, Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and markets products incorporating liquid flow measurement and control technologies developed both internally and with other technology companies. Its products are used in applications, including water, oil and chemicals. The Company's product lines fall into two categories: water applications and specialty applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 510 Lawsuits Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2010, was a defendant in about 510 active asbestos-related cases involving about 3,070 plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of June 30, 2010, the Company was a defendant in about 470 active asbestos cases involving about 3,025 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in about 440 active cases involving about 3,040 plaintiffs. During the period ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 170 claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 200 new claims. Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$6 million. During the period ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 200 claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 190 new claims. Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$7 million. About 2,600, or about 85%, of these claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon the Company's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against the Company will likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. Most of the claims filed in 2007 through 2010 involve individual or small groups of claimants. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, United States Steel Corporation produces and sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular products, in North America and Central Europe. Operations in North America also include transportation services (railroad and barge operations), real estate operations and engineering consulting services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Faces 509 Exposure Actions at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Corporation faced 509 asbestos-related cases as of Sept. 30, 2010 and 526 cases as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Between Dec. 31, 2009 and Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded two case adjustments, 36 new cases filed, and 55 resolved cases. As of June 30, 2010, the Company faced a total of 507 asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010) Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims arising from these matters. Headquartered in Dallas, Celanese Corporation is a global 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: Atkins Sues Chevron in Texas Over Exposure ----------------------------------------------------------- Edith Atkins, the widow of Jack Atkins, on Oct. 20, 2010, filed an asbestos lawsuit against Chevron USA in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. Throughout his career, Mr. Atkins was exposed to asbestos while employed as a general laborer for Gulf Oil, now known as Chevron, in Port Arthur, Tex. The suit states, "As a result of such exposure, [Jack] Atkins developed ... asbestosis and mesothelioma, for which he died a painful and terrible death on Aug. 14. Defendant knew for decades that asbestos-containing products could cause . . . cancer and still allowed employees to with and around asbestos." Mrs. Atkins sues for exemplary damages. Provost Umphrey attorney Keith Hyde, Esq., represents Mrs. Atkins. Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court, has been assigned to Case No. D188-639. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holland-on-Sea Clerk's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Chelmsford heard that the death of Margaret Dyball, a former clerk from Quilters Close, Holland-on-Sea, England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Clacton Gazette reports. Mrs. Dyball had worked as a clerk for Upminster Garages Ltd where she believed she was exposed to asbestos. The inquest heard that she was pursuing a legal claim for the disease. In a statement she wrote for the legal claim before she died, Mrs. Dyball said walking to and from her office across a "dirty and dusty" workshop had exposed her to asbestos. Mrs. Dyball was admitted to Colchester General Hospital on Aug. 27, 2010 with shortness of breath and a chronic cough. An x-ray showed fluid on the lungs and she died three days later at the age of 66. She had been previously admitted to the hospital, and diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2009. A post mortem examination concluded Mrs. Dyball died as a result of mesothelioma and exposure to asbestos. Coroner Caroline Beasley-Murray said Mrs. Dyball had died as a result of industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gibson Family Seeks Help in Compensation Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Gibson's widow, Jean Gibson, has appealed for Mr. Gibson's coworkers to come forward to help the Gibson family's fight for compensation, the Burton Mail reports. Mr. Gibson died on Feb. 7, 2010 at the age of 78 after being diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer in June 2009. The family's solicitor fears that Mr. Gibson was exposed to asbestos while working as a carpenter with Thomas Lowe & Sons based in Burton, England, and later as a foreman at builders AE Thompson & Sons Ltd, in Knowle. At the time of Mr. Gibson's employment with both firms, asbestos was routinely used in building work and he was often involved in cutting and drilling into asbestos sheets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roscommon Man's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Dublin City Coroner's Court heard that the death of William Carlos, of County Roscommon, Ireland, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Irish Times reports. Mr. Carlos died at the age of 60 at St James' Hospital on Dec. 3, 2009. Mr. Carlos' wife, Bernadette Carlos, told the inquest that Mr. Carlos, who was a farmer for most of his life, had told her he was exposed to asbestos while working in Britain. He said on one occasion that he was cutting tiles and it came down on top of him. Mr. Carlos was admitted to the hospital for breathlessness in April 2008. He was subsequently diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Mr. Carlos had surgery at Leicester University Hospital in Britain in October 2008 and he also had chemotherapy in Ireland. By the summer of 2009, it was clear the tumor, which is aggressive, had recurred. Coroner Dr. Brian Farrell said he was satisfied Mr. Carlos died of complications of malignant mesothelioma, including pneumonia, which he developed as a result of exposure to asbestos during the deceased's working life in Britain. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Brainerd, Jackson Gym Costs $350,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos removal at the Brainerd Building and the adjoining Jackson Gym in Libertyville, Ill., could cost US$350,000, the Daily Herald reports. The demolition itself could cost an additional US$350,000, Libertyville-Vernon Hills Area High School District 128 officials said. The estimates were made public on Oct. 25, 2010 during a brief school board discussion about the Brainerd campus, which is on Route 176 at Brainerd Avenue. District officials insist they still support a volunteer group's effort to convert the buildings into a community center. Even so, they want to have demolition estimates on hand if the group's efforts fall short. The Brainerd campus is owned by the school district but is being rented by the group with the community-center plans. Both buildings have been shuttered for years because of safety concerns. The current Libertyville High is located just west of the site on Route 176. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Summary Judgment Bid OK'd in Faddish Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, affirmed General Electric Co.'s motion for summary judgment in an asbestos lawsuit filed by Ruth Faddish on behalf of John Faddish. The case is styled Ruth Faddish, Individually and as executrix of the estate of John Faddish, deceased, Plaintiff v. General Electric Co. et al., Defendants. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09-70626 on Oct. 20, 2010. This case is part of MDL-875, the consolidated asbestos products liability multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. GE moved for summary judgment, asserting that Mrs. Faddish had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether GE products were the cause of Mr. Faddish's asbestos-related injuries. It was hereby ordered that GE's objections to the Magistrate Judges' Report and Recommendation filed on June 16, 2010 were overruled. GE's motion for summary judgment filed on Jan. 29, 2010 was granted. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Unit Facing 33 Filter Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc.'s subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, is a defendant in 33 asbestos-related Filter Cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and the 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. The Company is a defendant in three 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$20.4 million in settlements to finally resolve about 90 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 voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their appeal to the California Court of Appeals and the matter is concluded. As of Oct. 20, 2010, nine Filter Cases were scheduled for trial. Trial dates are subject to change. As of July 22, 2010, 10 asbestos-related Filter Cases were scheduled for trial. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010) Headquartered in Greensboro, N.C., Lorillard, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture and sale of 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: Claims v. BorgWarner Drop to 17,000 at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner, Inc. had about 17,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims as of Sept. 30, 2010 and 23,000 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company faced about 18,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims as of both June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010) Like many other industrial companies who have historically operated in the U.S., 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 17,000 outstanding claims at Sept. 30, 2010, about 9,000 were pending in just three jurisdictions, where significant tort and judicial reform activities are underway. In 2010, of about 6,400 claims resolved, about 168 (2.6%) 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. Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated with all claims were covered by the Company's primary layer insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended, settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement. In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This led the Company to access the next available layer of insurance coverage. Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos- related litigation defense and settlement expenses under a funding arrangement. To date, the Company has paid and accrued US$144.3 million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received US$29.7 million in cash from insurers. The net outstanding balance of US$114.6 million, which includes the US$40.7 million, is expected to be fully recovered, of which about $42 million is expected to be recovered within one year. Timing of the recovery is dependent on final resolution of a declaratory judgment action. At Dec. 31, 2009, insurers owed US$58.6 million in association with these claims. Headquartered in Auburn Mills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), cross-over vehicles, vans and light-trucks). ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Pays $40.7MM for Claims in July 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner, Inc., in July 2010, paid a total asbestos-related claim of US$40.7 million, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 27, 2010, with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 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. On July 8, 2010 the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied the Company's Notice of Petition appealing the decision of the lower courts. As a result of the 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. In addition to the US$114.6 million net outstanding balance relating to past settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a liability of US$45.7 million for claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related defense costs at Sept. 30, 2010. The Company also has a related asset of US$45.7 million to recognize the proceeds receivable from the insurance carriers. Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100% 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. Headquartered in Auburn Mills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), cross-over vehicles, vans and light-trucks). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continental Casualty Case Ongoing v. BorgWarner ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 provided the Company with both primary and additional layer insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos- related product liability claims. The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage available to the Company including whether the available limits exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be apportioned. On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding the apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of making insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs pro rata to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage. Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is reserved for appellate review at the end of the action. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of insurance available for potential future asbestos- related product claims. Headquartered in Auburn Mills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), cross-over vehicles, vans and light-trucks). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Flowserve Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation continues to be a defendant in a number of pending lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as components of process equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. The Company said it believes that a high percentage of the claims are covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other companies. Headquartered in Irving, Tex., Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service provider of comprehensive flow control systems. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Reserves $1.13BB for Claims at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.13 billion at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$1.18 billion at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.14 billion at June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010) Net of reinsurance recoverables, the reserves were US$565 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$600 million at Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation is a personal lines insurer. The Company's Allstate Protection segment sells auto, homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Posts $3.7MM CAROs at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Kaiser Aluminum Corporation says the estimated fair value of asbestos-related conditional asset retirement obligation (CARO) liabilities was US$3.7 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$3.5 million at Dec. 31, 2009. The Company said the estimated fair value of conditional asset retirement obligation liabilities was US$3.7 million at June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010) The Company has conditional asset retirement obligations (CARO) at several of its fabricated products facilities. The vast majority of such CAROs consist of incremental costs that would be associated with the removal and disposal of asbestos (all of which is believed to be fully contained and encapsulated within walls, floors, roofs, ceilings or piping) at certain of the older facilities if such facilities were to undergo major renovation or be demolished. There are currently plans for such renovation or demolition at one facility and management's current assessment is that certain immaterial CAROs may be triggered during the next seven years. For locations where there are no current plans for renovations or demolitions, the most probable scenario is that such CAROs would not be triggered for 20 or more years, if at all. Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's primary line of business is the production of semi- fabricated specialty aluminum products. In addition, the Company also owns a 49% interest in Anglesey, which operated an aluminum smelter in Holyhead, Wales until September 2009. The Company has one reportable segment, Fabricated Products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boylston Plant Manager Fined for Cleanup Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- H. Bradford White Jr., the general manager of the West Boylston Municipal Light Plant in Boylston, Mass., was arraigned on Oct. 27, 2010 on charges of violating the Clean Air Act in connection with the removal of asbestos-containing materials from the basement of the plant's main facility four years ago, the Telegram & Gazette reports. Mr. White pleaded not guilty in Worcester Superior Court to three counts of violating air pollution orders while overseeing the 2006 demolition/renovation of an unused substation in the basement of the plant at 4 Crescent St., West Boylston. According to a "statement of the case" filed in court by Assistant Attorney General Roberta Y. Horton, the work included the demolition of asbestos-containing transit panels by several light plant employees who were not trained in the handling of asbestos nor provided with equipment designed for that purpose. Mr. White, who had previously received asbestos training, oversaw the project, but failed to warn the employees about the dangers of the material they were handling and took no steps to ensure they followed demolition procedures mandated by the state Department of Environmental Protection, prosecutors allege. Mr. White is also accused of failing to make sure the asbestos- containing demolition debris was properly disposed of at an approved waste site and failing to ensure the proper storage of the material after it was tested and confirmed to contain asbestos in March 2008. The Department of Environmental Protection was notified of the substation demolition/renovation in March 2009, visited the plant and ordered additional testing of remaining material. The testing reconfirmed the presence of asbestos, and Mr. White was ordered to comply with proper disposal procedures, according to the attorney general's office. A grand jury returned the indictments against Mr. White on Sept. 20, 2010. Judge James R. Lemire, who presided over this morning's arraignment, released Mr. White on personal recognizance and continued his case to Dec. 1, 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Edison Summary Judgment OK'd in Lindemann --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted Ohio Edison's Jan. 15, 2010 motion for summary judgment in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Michael Lindemann. The case is styled Michael Lindemann, Plaintiff v. Ohio Edison, et al., Defendants. Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Case No. 07-63080 on Oct. 19, 2010. Michael Lindemann, as executor of the estate of George W. Lindemann, brought this action for asbestos exposure against numerous defendants. George Lindemann was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Feb. 7, 2005, and passed away on June 28, 2005. Michael Lindemann asserted that Ohio Edison was liable as owner of the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, located in Shippingport, Pa., where George Lindemann worked as a union laborer from 1974 to 1988. George Lindemann was employed by Foster Wheeler as an independent contractor at Bruce Mansfield. Foster Wheeler had a contract with the Plant for the maintenance of the "Unit One" boiler, and the job consisted primarily of clean up, after repairs to the boiler were conducted. Michael Lindemann alleged that the in the clean-up process, George Lindemann was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers. Michael Lindemann brought a claim against Ohio Edison as the premises owner of Bruce Mansfield. Jason E. Luckasevic, Esq., Jason T. Shipp, Esq., Peter T. Paladino, Jr., Esq., Diana N. Jacobs, Esq. of Goldberg Persky & White in Pittsburgh, represented Mr. Lindemann. Eric Falk, Esq., Julie L. Nord, Esq., of Davies, McFarland & Carroll, P.C., Gregory L. Fitzpatrick, Esq., Margolis Edelstein, Esq., Terry A. Schrock, Esq., Maron Pierce, Esq., Meghan Fawcett Wise, Esq., Alexander P. Bicket, Esq., of Zimmer Kunz PLLC, Jennifer E. Watson, Esq., of Wilbraham Lawler & Buba PC in Pittsburgh represented Defendants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Ford Motor's Bid in Anderson Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied Ford Motor Company's motion to compel production of settlement documents in an asbestos case filed by Arva Anderson. The case is styled Arva Anderson, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph A. Anderson, Jr. v. Ford Motor Company, et al. U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09-69122 on Oct. 20, 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Yorker Fails to Conduct Proper Inspection -------------------------------------------------------------- A man from New York pleaded guilty to charges he failed to conduct the proper inspection of a building before the removal of asbestos and falsifying a tax report, reports WIVB.com. In 2008, Daniel Black, 56, of Bemus Point, NY, president of Blackstone Business Enterprises, Incorporated, approved a cleaning of a building in Jamestown, NY. Black hired four contractors to work on the project which included the removal of steam pipes that contained asbestos. The Department of Labor in the state of New York, Asbestos Control Bureau and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration discovered the harmful fibers during an inspection after the removal of the pipes. Allegedly, Black did not conduct a thorough check for asbestos. He has agreed that BBEI should pay a $205,000 penalty to OSHA and $25,000 to NYS-DOL for the violations. "Employees in the remediation and renovation business have the expectation that their health and safety will be protected on the job," said U.S. Attorney William Hochul, who added, "my office will not hesitate to prosecute any who knowingly ignore the country's laws in these respects." Asbestos is a cancer-causing agent which often leads to the development of mesothelioma, a rare and untreatable disease. People who worry they may have contracted an asbestos-related illness, such as mesothelioma, often try to seek compensation through an asbestos law firm. ASBESTOS UPDATE: School District Has Grant to Remove Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Manchir, writing for TribLocal, reports that Valley View School District has received a grant from the state to remove asbestos flooring in three elementary schools. A contract between the district and the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity says the project will alleviate "a threat to the health and safety of students enrolled" at J.R. Tibbott Elementary School in Bolingbrook and Irene King and R.C. Hill Elementary Schools in Romeoville. District spokesman Larry Randa said the current floors pose no danger to students and the project is "just continued upgrades in our schools." The district is set to receive $140,000 to remove asbestos tile and replace it with new flooring at those schools, according to the contract. When asbestos-containing materials are damaged or disturbed, fibers become airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause health problems, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Asbestos was once widely used in a variety of building construction materials for insulation. The Valley View school board was slated to take a vote on moving the project forward at its 7:30 p.m. board meeting on October 25 at the district's administrative center, 755 Dalhart Ave. in Romeoville. ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Kesteven Dist. Council Issues Safety Advice ------------------------------------------------------------------ BBC News reports that North Kesteven District Council has issued safety advice to its tenants over asbestos that may be present in their homes. The move comes after guidance from the Healthy and Safety Executive. A council spokesperson said most homes in private and public ownership contained asbestos, especially those built in the 60s and 70s. But tenants were reassured the presence of asbestos itself was low risk unless the material was damaged. Conservative Councillor Stewart Ogden, executive member for housing at NKDC, said: "The presence of asbestos in housing is nothing unusual, in fact it is to be expected. "By notifying tenants of the potential presence of asbestos in their homes, we hope to reiterate the need to exercise caution and contact the council in all cases where minor improvements could disturb the material." ********* 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, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan 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 * * *