/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101112.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 12, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 224 Headlines ALLIANZ LIFE: Motion to Reconsider Class Suit Ruling Denied AT&T MOBILITY: Unconscionability of Arbitration Clause Argued CAPELLA EDUCATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Minnesota CHATTEM INC: Sued in Indiana for Deceptive Sales Practices CLUB CAR: Recalls 5,000 Golf Cars and Hospitality Vehicles DENNY'S CORP: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime DISCOVER FIN'L: Sued Over Discover Card Payment Protection Plan ENTERPRISE GP: Sale Done Without Vote of Unitholders, Suit Says FELTEX CARPETS: Class Action Case Against Directors Heard FORD MOTOR: Sued for Concealing Engine Defects From Customers GOOGLE INC: Sued for Invasion of Privacy Rights HICKORY SPRINGS: Sued for Violations of Antitrust Laws JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Two Foreclosure Fraud Class Action Lawsuits I-FLOW CORP: Segal & Greenberg Obtain Three-Defense Verdicts ORLEANS PARISH: Motions in Class Action Under Advisement ROLLERBLADE USA: Recalls 29,000 Spark, Spitfire Inline Skates SHELL OIL: Danhausen Family Not Entitled to $4.7MM Reimbursement SPIRAL FOODS: Nov. 12 Directions Hearing Set for Bonsoy Suit TOLL BROTHERS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $25 Million WAL-MART STORES: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Gets Final OK WELLS FARGO: Homeowners' Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio Settled WILMINGTON TRUST: Board Sued Over Sale to M&T Bank Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Involved in 10,300 Injury Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Still Party to 100 Main Rupture Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still a Defendant in Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: 191 Claims Pending v. Rogers Corp. at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Posts $24.72M Sept. 30 Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has $701MM Litigation Charge at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Records $1.88BB Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Sept. 30 Liability at $3.85M ASBESTOS UPDATE: 540 Actions Ongoing v. MeadWestvaco at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases in Miss. v. Transocean Ltd. Units Ongoing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Face 1,049 Actions at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Facing 63,472 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $58MM Sept. 30 Defense Costs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Pursues Insurance Action in N.Y. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $84MM Receivable at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Chem. Faces Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: HECO Posts $35MM Sept. 30 Retirement Obligation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Tidewater Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contract Flooring Fined $10,800 for Mishandling ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Hadley Man Penalized for Cleanup Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edwards Case v. 81 Firms Filed Oct. 15 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Lewis Penalized GBP20T for Safety Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brumbaugh, Knapp Actions filed in St. Clair Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valentino Case v. 26 Firms Ongoing in Meigs Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FDS Waste to Pay GBP3,479 for Disposal Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shockley Case v. 57 Companies Filed on Oct. 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Opposing Move Filed by Asbestos Trusts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bolton Joiner's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Awarded $150T to Reduce Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Marshall Co. Bldg. Estimated at $30T ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups to Fight Aussie Govt. Over Sucrogen Sale ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Tyneside Boss Fined for Safety Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Subject to Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Ladish Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 56,960 at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Has $2.34MM Asbestos, Bankruptcy Charges ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Posts $2.3MM Litigation Expense at Oct. 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Records $138.72MM Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,262 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Still Party to Howden Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Harbinger in Miss., La. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Shipyards Posts $2.7MM Reserves at Oct. 3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Curtiss-Wright ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Devon Firm Fined Over Disposal Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simon's Charged for Disposal Breach in Parklea ASBESTOS UPDATE: Korea Woman Files Appeal Regarding Compensation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Trascher Case ********* ALLIANZ LIFE: Motion to Reconsider Class Suit Ruling Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge in Los Angeles said she won't reconsider her August decision allowing senior citizens to pursue class actions against Allianz Life Insurance for allegedly tricking them into buying risky deferred annuities. A class of 200,000 senior citizens filed a racketeering lawsuit against Allianz in 2005, claiming the company conspired with marketers to lure them into buying deferred annuities, which are investments that mature over a long period of time. Allianz allegedly imposed "substantial surrender charges" on seniors who tried to withdraw their money early. Allianz moved to dismiss the RICO claims of certain class members on the basis that they were barred by a January judgment for Allianz in another case. But U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder allowed the claims to proceed in her August order, saying Allianz should have raised that argument before the final judgment. Allianz then asked Judge Snyder to either reconsider her previous order or certify questions for immediate appeal, citing "a laundry lists of facts and evidence that it claims the court failed to consider," according to the ruling. Specifically, Allianz asked Judge Snyder to look at transcripts from a multidistrict litigation hearing in 2007, which Allianz said confirms the company's intention to assert claim preclusion. Judge Snyder was not convinced. She said Allianz "has not demonstrated sufficient grounds for reconsideration." "To the extent that Allianz seeks reconsideration on the grounds that the court failed to consider material facts and evidence presented to the court, and accepted as true plaintiffs' factual assertions without any evidence to support those assertions, these claimed errors are not simply supported by the record," she wrote. Judge Snyder added that certification for immediate appeal "is not warranted under the present circumstances," because Allianz failed to show that such an appeal presented the type of "exceptional circumstances" required for judicial review. A copy of the Honorable Christina Snyder's Nov. 1, 2010, Order in Negrete, et al. v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 05-cv-06838 (C.D. Calif.), and Healey v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 05-cv-08908 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/Allianz.pdf AT&T MOBILITY: Unconscionability of Arbitration Clause Argued ------------------------------------------------------------- Avery Fellow at Courthouse News Service reports that the Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether federal arbitration law preempts California's decision that a class-action ban in an arbitration clause is unconscionable. Vincent and Liza Concepcion brought a class action against AT&T Mobility for allegedly fraudulent taxes on their cell phone contract. The district court held that AT&T's arbitration clause blocking class actions was unconscionable, and thus unenforceable. The United States District Court for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Federal Arbitration Act did not preempt California's law on unconscionability. The justices seemed reluctant to step in and tell California what's unconscionable. "Are we going to tell the state of California what it has to consider unconscionable?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked AT&T's attorney, Andrew Pincus. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accused Mr. Pincus of failing to show where California had said it was applying a different concept of unconscionability to the cell phone contract than it did for other contracts. Mr. Pincus replied that although the state hasn't said so, it was applying a different standard. He argued that the California statute defining unconscionability states that the determination should be made at the time of the contract, and in this case, the determination was made when the dispute arose. Mr. Pincus said language in the state law, stating that the determination apply to "any contract," means the law has to apply generally to contracts. Justice Antonin Scalia argued that some elements of unconscionability can only arise in a litigation or arbitration context, such as requiring the party to arbitrate in a distant location, and cannot possibly apply to other contracts. Mr. Pincus said the principles California applied in order to find unconscionability were different in the Concepcion case than principles applied in other contexts. Justice Stephen Breyer, trying to illustrate where California drew the line, compared it to Switzerland having a law saying it would only buy milk from cows in pastures higher than 9,000 feet, which clearly discriminates, but if it said it wants cows that passed the tuberculin test, that doesn't discriminate. "Here . . . the class arbitration exists. . . . So where is the 9,000-foot cow?" Justice Breyer asked. "Where is the discrimination?" Mr. Pincus said the "9,000-foot meadow" fit the case, because the statute requires full use of discovery procedures in court and in arbitration. Justice Elena Kagan asked why Mr. Pincus said it was okay for a state to determine that a provision barring certain kinds of attorney's fees or a law prohibiting certain kinds of discovery provisions was unconscionable, but it could not do the same for a class arbitration provision. "What separates the two?" she asked. Mr. Pincus argued that the state was working against its own "traditional unconscionability doctrine," focusing on unfairness to third parties instead of distinctly on the party who filed suit. Justice Kagan pointed out that the state was allowed to change its mind and start taking into account third parties. "It's the state's unconscionability doctrine," she said. "But it is not the state's general unconscionability doctrine, Justice Kagan," Mr. Pincus said, adding that the state has failed to adopt a general statute concerning third parties. "[S]o what if they've never done this before?" Justice Breyer asked. "They sure have done it now. And what's the basis for saying that the Arbitration Act or any other part of federal law forbids California from doing that?" Chief Justice John Roberts said considering the Concepcions as third parties was a "different mode of analysis" than general contract law, which construes third parties as the general public, not the specific party bringing the case. Deepak Gupta, arguing for the Concepcions, said they were third parties because they did not know the point at which they would detect the fraud when they signed up for the cell phone contract. When Justice Samuel Alito asked why the Concepcions were "better off" with a class adjudication, Mr. Gupta replied that when they enter into the contract, it's not reasonable for them to give up the benefits they would get from a class action. A class action motivates lawyers and others to find fraud, Mr. Gupta said. Justice Kagan asked Mr. Gupta what he thought of AT&T's claim that a ruling for the Concepcions would effectively "kill off" class arbitration because it includes all the procedures and liability but no judicial review. Mr. Gupta argued that class arbitrations have existed for 25 years, citing examples of their use. A copy of the transcripts of the oral arguments in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, et ux., No. 09-893 (U.S.), is available at: http://is.gd/gT4H2 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Deepak Gupta, Esq. PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP 1600 20th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 588-1000 AT&T Mobility is represented by: Andrew J. Pincus, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 Telephone: (202) 263 3220 E-mail: apincus@mayerbrown.com CAPELLA EDUCATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Capella Education is the latest to face a shareholder class action accusing it of inflating its share price by concealing its abusive and deceptive recruitment and student loan tactics, in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Police Pension Fund of Peoria v. Capella Education Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04474 (D. Minn.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/ForProfit.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Minnesota St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: 651-287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com - and - David J. George, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: 561-750-3000 CHATTEM INC: Sued in Indiana for Deceptive Sales Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that Dexatrim weight loss pills contain carcinogenic hexavalent chromium -- and don't even help you lose weight. The class adds that the drugmaker, Chattem, does not list the carcinogen in the ingredients, though it knows or should know of its presence. The two named plaintiffs claim that in March this year an independent lab -- ConsumerLab.com -- reported that Dexatrim contains hexavalent chromium. ConsumerLab tested "various weight loss supplements, including Dexatrim, to determine whether the products met the claims on the labels regarding the ingredients, and moreover, whether the products contained any harmful ingredients," according to the complaint. "Among other things, the report states that Dexatrim was contaminated with the hazardous chemical hexavalent chromium, also referred to as Cr(VI) in the amounts of 1.6 to 3.3 mcg." The complaint claims that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that exposure to hexavalent chromium can increase the risk of lung cancer, and that "other adverse health effects associated with Cr(VI) exposure include dermal irritation, skin ulceration, allergic contact dermatitis, occupational asthma, nasal irritation and ulceration, perforated nasal septa, rhinitis, nosebleed, respiratory irritation, nasal cancer, sinus cancer, eye irritation and damage, perforated eardrums, kidney damage, liver damage, pulmonary congestion and edema, epigastric pain, and erosion and discoloration of the teeth." The complaint adds: "The [ConsumerLab] report further concludes that Dexatrim contains 'a tea blend and ginseng, which may provide an "energizing" feeling, but [are] not known to cause wright loss,' and also 'contains many B vitamins and iodine which, although needed for metabolism, will not cause weight loss.'" And, the complaint states: "Although Chattem goes to great lengths to promote the healthfulness and safety of Dexatrim, none of Chattem's promotional materials or labels disclosed the fact the Dexatrim contains hexavalent chromium, or provided any warning concerning the potential adverse health effects associated with ingestion of the hazardous chemical." As a diet supplement, Dexatrim is loosely regulated, if at all, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Dexatrim brand "has suffered dramatic sales losses in recent years," according to the Nutrition Business Journal, which reported that Chattem's "wholesale supplement sales in the United States totaled $19.5 million in its fiscal year 2008." The class seeks damages for deceptive sales practices, breach of warranty, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, and also wants the company ordered to correct its advertising. A copy of the Complaint in Hughes v. Chattem, Inc., Case No. 10- cv-01407 (S.D. Ind.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/Dexatrim.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: William N. Riley, Esq. Joseph N. Williams, Esq. 301 Massachusetts Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 633-8787 - and - Joe R. Whatley, Jr. Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7070 - and - James H. McFerrin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIM MCFERRIN 2117 Magnolia Avenue So., Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 870-5704 - and - Robert S. Tellman, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROB TELLMAN 2117 Magnolia Avenue So., Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 370-1998 - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE RICHMAN LLP 875 Avenue of the Americas Eighteenth Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 579-4625 - and - Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq. 914 Waters Avenue, Suite 20 Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: (832) 715-2788 CLUB CAR: Recalls 5,000 Golf Cars and Hospitality Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Club Car, LLC of Augusta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,000 Golf cars and hospitality, utility and transport vehicles. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The brake pedal can crack and separate, resulting in a loss of braking ability. This can result in a crash. Club Car has received two reports of brake pedals breaking. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Model 2010 DS golf cars and hospitality, utility and transport vehicles used for short-distance transportation. They are various sizes, models and colors. The vehicles can be identified by the serial number, which is above and to the right of the accelerator pedal. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11708.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and sold through authorized Club Car dealers nationwide from April 2010 through July 2010 for between $6,000 and $17,000. Club Car is providing a free inspection and replacement of the brake pedal. The company is contacting its customers directly. For more information, contact Club Car at (800) 227-0739, ext. 3580 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, or go to the firm's Web site at http://www.clubcar.com/ DENNY'S CORP: Accused in California Suit of Not Paying Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Denny's Corporation stiff workers for overtime, a class action claims in California Superior Court. A copy of the Complaint in Paiva v. Denny's Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2010-00103831 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.) (Oberholtzer, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/Dennys.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 110 Pine Avenue, Suite 725 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (888) 474-7242 DISCOVER FIN'L: Sued Over Discover Card Payment Protection Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports five St. Clair County residents have filed a class action against Discover Card for enrolling them in a costly payment protection plan. Mark Hyzy, Holly Satterlee, Wilbur Thomas, Kenneth Busby and Margaret McRae filed the lawsuit Oct. 26 in St. Clair County on behalf of all others in the same situation. The suit names Discover Financial Services Inc. and DFS Services LLC as defendants. They are represented by John Carey, former St. Clair County Circuit Judge Michael O'Malley, Francis Flynn, Jr., Tiffany Yiatras and Michael Flannery of Carey Danis & Lowe in St. Louis. Attorneys from Nagel Rice and Paris Ackerman and Schmierer of Roseland, N.J. also represent the proposed class. According to the complaint, Mr. Hyzy, Ms. Satterlee, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Busby, Ms. McRae and other Illinoisans were enrolled in a payment protection program unwillingly and without their knowledge. The plan charges those enrolled a fee based on a percentage of their Discover Card balance at the end of the month. Members of the proposed class say they were signed up for the Discover Card program without consent, saying they only agreed to be sent promotional materials related to the plan. They also claim the credit card company overcharged them and made it difficult to cancel membership in the plan. Mr. Hyzy says he was charged $374 in fees related to the plan. Thomas claims he was charged $54. Mr. Busby was allegedly charged $32. The proposed members allege consumer fraud, deceptive business practices and unjust enrichment. They are asking for unspecified damages and court costs. St. Clair County Circuit Court case No. 10-L-563 ENTERPRISE GP: Sale Done Without Vote of Unitholders, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports shareholders told a Harris County Court the $9 billion sale of Enterprise GP Holdings to Enterprise Products was done without a vote of Enterprise GP "unitholders". A copy of the Complaint in Ailshie v. Enterprise Products Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 2010-73531 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Norman, Esq. CROWLEY NORMAN L.L.P. Three Riverway, Suite 1775 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 651-1771 - and - Marc A. Topaz, Esq. Lee D. Rudy, Esq. Michael C. Wagner, Esq. J. Daniel Albert, Esq. BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 - and - Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq. Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq. NIX PATTERSON & ROACH LLP 5215 North O'Connor Blvd., Suite 1900 Irving, TX 75039 Telephone: (972) 831-1188 FELTEX CARPETS: Class Action Case Against Directors Heard --------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Gregor, writing for NZ Herald News, reports a four-day hearing is being held in the High Court at Christchurch this week to determine whether the investors can take a class action case against former Feltex Carpets Ltd. directors. Investors are claiming the company's prospectus in 2004, the year it floated, contained information that was misleading or wrong, or omitted to make information available that would have affected people's decision to invest in Feltex. The defendants include former chairman Tim Saunders, former chief executive Sam Magill and former directors John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers. Former director John Hagen is not involved in these proceedings. The defendants have denied the claims. In August, former Feltex directors Saunders, Feeney, Hunter, Thomas and Hagen were found not guilty of alleged Securities Act breaches at the Auckland District Court. Also targeted in the action is Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners, who offered Feltex for sale, Credit Suisse Private Equity and joint lead float managers, First New Zealand Capital and Forsyth Barr. Feltex's collapsed in 2006 cost 8,000 investors millions. FORD MOTOR: Sued for Concealing Engine Defects From Customers ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Ford's 6-liter diesel engine for model years 2003-07 was so defective that Ford sued co-defendant Navistar, which made them, for the "unprecedented problems," while it concealed the defects from customers, a class action claims in Federal Court. A copy of the Complain in Burns v. Navistar, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02295 (S.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/09/Ford.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM 12707 High Bluff Dr., Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 350-4342 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com GOOGLE INC: Sued for Invasion of Privacy Rights ----------------------------------------------- Jason Weber, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Google Inc., Case no. 10-cv-05035 (N.D. Calif. November 5, 2010), brings claims against the global technology company on behalf of individuals or entities in the United States who, from June 30, 2009, to the present, downloaded, installed, and used Google Toolbar with the result that their personally identifiable information, including URLs visited, was transmitted without their informed consent. Google Toolbar is a downloadable software designed to aid users in searching and browsing the web. Mr. Weber explains that for some of Toolbar's features to work, such as features to display additional information about the web page the user is viewing, Toolbar transmits to Google certain information about the user's web activity, including the specific pages the user views. Mr. Weber says that contrary to Google's statements that a user can maintain web-browsing privacy by disabling these features, in reality Toolbar continued to transmit to Google the address of every web page viewed by the user, including personal information about the user. Mr. Weber relates that for many months Google knew about serious discrepancies between its statements and how Toolbar actually functioned, but it failed to take any corrective action until only January 2010, after publicity revealed the details of Toolbar's improper data collection. By transmitting personally identifiable information about users of its Google Toolbar including their Internet activities, Mr. Weber says Google violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Kamber, Esq. David A. Stampley, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 100 Wall Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com dstampley@kamberlaw.com - and - Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 601 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 400-1050 E-mail: akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com HICKORY SPRINGS: Sued for Violations of Antitrust Laws ------------------------------------------------------ East Bay Floorcovering, Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-05045 (N.D. Calif. November 8, 2010), accuses the Polyurethane Foam manufacturer of conspiring with other co- defendants to fix prices of Polyurethane Foam sold in the United States, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15. As of result of Defendants' illegal activities, East Bay, a flooring products company, says it and other Class Members paid artificially inflated prices for Polyurethane Foam and have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mario N. Alioto, Esq. Lauren C. Russell, Esq. TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT, LLP 2280 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 563-7200 E-mail: malioto@tatp.com laurenrussell@tatp.com - and - Joseph M. Patane, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. PATANE 2280 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 563-7200 E-mail: jpatane@tatp.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Two Foreclosure Fraud Class Action Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Benoit, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. said it's facing two purported class-action suits alleging foreclosure fraud after the bank temporarily halted foreclosures in September. The company also became the latest big Wall Street bank to disclose a laundry list of lawsuits it is facing that allege the banks' underwriting of mortgages used in securitizations harmed investors in those securitizations. In its quarterly filing Tuesday, J.P. Morgan said it and its Washington Mutual Bank and Chase Home Finance LLC divisions are facing suits in Illinois and California that are seeking class action status. The lawsuits allege "common law fraud and misrepresentation, as well as violations of state consumer fraud statutes." The filing said the review of the foreclosure process, which arose as banks across the country discovered problems in the paperwork including so-called "robo-signers," is ongoing. It has found evidence of employees not verifying documents their signatures suggested they verified, but J.P. Morgan reiterated it believed the underlying facts behind the foreclosures were "materially accurate." The filing reiterated that the bank is facing increasing costs because of the foreclosure freeze but that it hopes to start filing again "expeditiously." The bank also said it encountered the same lawsuits other banks, including Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp., have said they face, including suits by the Federal Home Loan Banks and Charles Schwab Corp. J.P. Morgan said it was facing suits from nine Federal Home Loan Banks, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. and Schwab. Those suits, in various state and federal courts across the country, allege largely the same: that banks didn't present the material facts about the underlying mortgages that made up the mortgage-backed securities the plaintiffs invested in. I-FLOW CORP: Segal & Greenberg Obtain Three-Defense Verdicts ------------------------------------------------------------ Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. and Greenberg Traurig, LLP, obtained three defense verdicts at trial in favor of medical device manufacturer I-Flow Corporation. A federal jury in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon returned defense verdicts on all counts in favor of I-Flow, and against each of three plaintiffs whose cases had been consolidated for trial. The plaintiffs sought between $11 million and $19 million in total damages for alleged permanent, disabling shoulder injuries known as post-arthroscopic glenohumeral chondrolysis. All three plaintiffs claimed that they sustained PAGCL after infusion pumps manufactured by I-Flow were used to infuse local anesthetics into their shoulders following arthroscopic surgeries they underwent in 2004. After four weeks of evidence and five hours of deliberation, the jury returned three unanimous defense verdicts for I-Flow. The jury found that plaintiffs failed to prove that the pumps were defective, or that there were inadequate warnings related to the pumps or use of them, or that the pumps caused the plaintiffs' alleged injuries. The consolidated cases, Christina McClellan v. I-Flow Corporation, et al., Juan Huerta v. I-Flow Inc., et al., and Danny Arvidson v. DJO, LLC, et al., were decided on Friday, October 15, 2010. The defense trial team was led by Jeffrey Singer and Mark Crane of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. and Lori Cohen and Scott Campbell of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The cases are the first in the infusion pump litigation to be tried by this defense team. ORLEANS PARISH: Motions in Class Action Under Advisement -------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro de los Rios, writing for Louisiana Record, reports Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge Ethel Julien heard almost 20 motions on Nov. 5 in a class action suit filed by former employees of the Orleans Parish School Board after they were fired following hurricane Katrina. New Orleans attorneys Willie Zanders, Suzette Bagneris, Clarence Roby, Anthony Irpino, Roderick Alvendia, Juana Lombard, Charles Samuel, and Walter Willard are representing the class of an estimated 8,000 OPSB employees that were laid off or forced to retire following the state of Louisiana's overhaul of the OPSB through the Recovery School District. New Orleans attorneys William Aaron Jr. and Renee Smith are representing the OPSB. Baton Rouge attorneys Michael Rubin, Brent Hicks, Jon Giblin and Willa Smith and assistant Attorney General Angelique Freel are representing the state agencies. OPSB and RSD counsel filed several motions in response to the plaintiffs fifth supplemental petition for damages which alleges all the school boards are liable for damages under the Louisiana Teacher Tenure Law and Reduction in Force Law. The state's exception cites a June 11 ruling in the First Circuit court in the case Hays v. BESE which stated that the TTL "does not apply to reductions-in-force; rather when a reduction in force is implemented the Reduction in Force statute (La. R.S. 17:81.4) alone is controlling. The defense argues that the plaintiffs cannot allege violations of the TTL and RFL because the laws "are mutually exclusive." Plaintiffs argue that the RSD and OPSB "conspired to and, in fact, committed wrongful conduct which included, but was not limited to, the following: a) wrongful termination of plaintiffs and class members; and/or b) intentional interference with the plaintiffs' and class members' employment contracts and/or property rights." Judge Julien took the plaintiffs' motions under advisement. She approved a state motion for leave to file a cross claim against the OPSB. Orleans Parish Case 2005-12244 ROLLERBLADE USA: Recalls 29,000 Spark, Spitfire Inline Skates ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Rollerblade USA, of West Lebanon, N.H., announced a voluntary recall of about 29,000 pairs of Spark, Spitfire Inline Skates. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The frame mounting bolts and wheel axle bolts can be loose on new skates. Loose wheels or frames on the skates can cause the rider to fall, posing a risk of injury. Rollerblade USA has received 31 reports of loose bolts, including one report of a fall resulting in minor injuries that required medical attention. This recall involves the following models of inline skates purchased since September 2009. Spark Pro, Men's (SKU# 00792200816), Black Spark Pro, Women's (SKU# 007923007E2), Anthracite (Grey) Spark 80, Men's (SKU# 00702800956), Black Spark 80, Women's (SKU# 007029009A6), Anthracite (Grey) Spitfire, Boy's (SKU# 00705500741), Black Spitfire, Girl's (SKU# 007056007Y8), Silver Spitfire S, Boy's (SKU# 00705700956), Black Spitfire S, Girl's (SKU# 007058009A7), Anthracite (Grey) Spitfire LX, (SKU# 00705000955), Silver Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11033.html The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand, Vietnam and China and sold through Sporting goods stores nationwide and on the Internet from September 2009 through July 2010 for between $80 and $160. Consumers should immediately inspect all wheel-axle and frame- mounting bolts to ensure that they are properly tightened. Rollerblade USA recommends regular inspection and tightening of bolts. After wheel-axle and frame mounting bolts are inspected and tightened if needed, products are acceptable for sale & use. Video instructions on bolt tightening and maintenance are available at http://www.rollerblade.com/ For additional information, contact Rollerblade USA at (800) 232-7655 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rollerblade.com/ SHELL OIL: Danhausen Family Not Entitled to $4.7MM Reimbursement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sonya Angelica Diehn at Courthouse News Service reports that an Illinois family is not entitled to $4.7 million of a $26 million class-action settlement after thousands of gallons of gas from a Shell Oil Co. pipeline spilled onto their farm in 1988, a state appeals court ruled. Farmers and property owners sued Shell in 2001 after gas from its pipeline spilled onto farmland in Kankakee County. Their lawsuit resulted in a 2007 class-action settlement for $26 million. The Danhausen family, whose farm was contaminated by the spill, challenged the decision of the settlement administrator, who granted them $120,489 as reimbursement for the damage to their property and water. The Danhausen estate claimed it was entitled to $1.17 million for diminution of property value and $3.52 million for nuisance and quiet enjoyment. The trial court ruled that because Shell had paid the Danhausens an undisclosed amount of rent, $120,489 was adequate compensation. The court found no evidence that the Danhausens planned to subdivide the property for residential development. The 3rd District Appellate Court, based in Ottawa, Ill., agreed with the trial court that the settlement formula was "fair, reasonable and adequate." Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Robert L. Carter said the Danhausen estate "does not provide any legal or factual support for its claim." "While it is undisputed that the gasoline spill occurred on the Danhausen estate's property, it did not present adequate evidence that it was entitled to a larger distribution of the settlement fund for these damages," Justice Carter concluded. A copy of the Opinion in Quick, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 3-09-0987 (Ill. App. Ct.), is available at: http://is.gd/gT5sq SPIRAL FOODS: Nov. 12 Directions Hearing Set for Bonsoy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Kym Agius, writing for AAP, reports more than 150 people have joined a class action against the distributor of a soy milk product found to contain excessive levels of iodine. Bonsoy voluntarily recalled its product in December 2009 after it was found to contain iodine levels 1000 times higher than rival brands, with one glass containing seven times the safe dose of the mineral. Maurice Blackburn lawyers launched a class action about five weeks ago in the Victorian Supreme Court alleging negligence on the part of the product's Australian distributor, Spiral Foods. At that time, 25 people were part of the class action. Since then, the number has ballooned to 155, the law firm's Queensland principal Rod Hodgson said on Tuesday. "The scale of this problem is much bigger than originally thought," Mr. Hodgson told reporters in Brisbane. "Women have had miscarriages or babies with abnormalities." Others allegedly lapsed into comas, had their thyroids removed, and reported heart palpations, eyesight and hair loss. Some will be on medication for the rest of their lives, Mr. Hodgson said. The class action alleges the distribution company was negligent because it failed to test the milk. Compensation is being sought for medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering. Brisbane woman Shannon Cotterill drank Bonsoy soy milk over four years. After giving birth to her daughter Lucy late last year, her health took a downward spiral. "I thought I was going to die," she told reporters in Brisbane. Her symptoms included a resting heart rate of 150 beats per minute, hair loss, fatigue, joint pain and anxiety. She said she was admitted to hospital three times, stopped breast feeding and was forced to extend her maternity leave, therefore missing out on possible promotions at work. Ms. Cotterill's daughter Lucy, now 11 months, has lumps in her breast tissue, and tests are being done to see if it is linked to high iodine levels. "I put Lucy to bed every night, kiss her and tell her I love her and that I'll see her in the morning, then I silently wish for her not to ever suffer because of this," Ms. Cotterill said. Mr. Hodgson said he expected more people to join the class action. "We believe that this is the tip of the iceberg," he said. "Any person who had some unexplained health problems between 2003 and last Christmas, which might have been thought to have been due to excess iodine should obtain medical advice, but if they drank Bonsoy, there is some realistic prospect that their health problems could be attributed to this product." The class action will go to a directions hearing in the Victorian Supreme Court this Friday, November 12. The excessive iodine was traced to a type of seaweed used in the manufacture of Bonsoy, and samples of the soy drink revealed iodine concentrations from 25,000 to 27,000 micrograms per litre. A reformulated Bonsoy product, excluding seaweed, was reintroduced to the Australian market this year. Comment has been sought from Spiral Foods. TOLL BROTHERS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $25 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Helen Wright, writing for International Construction magazine, reports US luxury house builder Toll Brothers has paid $25 million to settle a long-running class action lawsuit accusing it of misleading investors over its financial health during the downturn in the housing market. Court documents filed on October 28 reveal that the parties agreed to settle after weighing up their options during mediation. The Toll Brothers case was among the first of the subprime-related securities suits when it was filed in April 2007. The house builder had moved to dismiss the complaint that year, but the court denied this motion and allowed the class action to proceed. The complaint alleged that Toll Brothers -- which specializes in building large, expensive homes for high-end buyers -- made a series of false and misleading statements indicating that its business model was immune from the adverse economic conditions affecting the mainstream housing market. The complaint states: "Contrary to the positive statements defendants were making publicly they knew that a number of adverse developments were negatively impacting their business and signaling much slower growth than they were leading investors to expect." Shortly after a 2005 stock sale which netted the company over $617 million, Toll Brothers' share price plummeted 43 percent from its class-period high. The company revealed in a series of disclosures that deteriorating demand for luxury homes in the US had in fact lead to a decline in sales. According to the settlement stipulation, the investors reached the decision to settle after recognizing the "expense, length and complexity of continued proceedings". US district Judge Daniel Jones stipulated in the filing that the $25 million be paid to investors who bought Toll Brothers shares between December 9, 2004 and November 8, 2005. Toll Brothers denies all wrongdoing in reaching the settlement -- an agreement which is subject to court approval. WAL-MART STORES: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra B. Armstrong, has granted final approval to the settlement of a wage and hour class action suit against Wal-Mart in California, In re Wal-Mart Stores Wage and Hour Litigation, Case No. 02069SBA (Smith Case No. C-06-02069SBA and Ballard Case No. C-06-05411SBA). The settlement, which provides for a payment of between $43 million and $86 million (including claims, costs, and attorneys' fees), concludes more than four years of litigation concerning the payment of wages to California associates. In addition, as part of the settlement, Wal-Mart has agreed to continue to maintain electronic systems that will protect the rights of workers. "This settlement represents an extraordinary result for the members of this class, with up to $86 million being paid by Wal-Mart to resolve the claim that class members were underpaid approximately $12 million in vacation and other wages when their employment with Wal-Mart ended. The potential additional $74 million payment represents interest and statutorily imposed expenses that Wal-Mart may have faced had the matter proceeded to trial," said Louis Marlin of Marlin & Saltzman, one of the counsel for the class. "The case has been hard fought since it was filed four years ago, with Wal-Mart's lawyers presenting a vigorous defense. Marlin & Saltzman, along with our co-counsel, including Peter Hart, have fought hard for the class members." "Our policy is to pay our associates in an accurate and timely manner. Our communications, processes and systems will help ensure that's the case," said Greg Rossiter, Wal-Mart spokesperson. WELLS FARGO: Homeowners' Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio Settled ------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Perotti, Esq., at Dworken & Bernstein Co. L.P.A., in Lake County, Ohio, settled a multi-million dollar class action suit on behalf of homeowners against Wells Fargo (Bartley v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. CV-02-469375 Coleman v. Wells Fargo Bank West N.A., Case No. CV-02-471327). Wells Fargo Bank failed to release mortgage liens for tens of thousands of homeowners in Ohio between 1996 and 2007. This violates Ohio law which requires release of the liens within 90 days after payoff. Wells Fargo must clear the title for anyone still having an improper lien. Both are Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. "The case took five years to litigate with the bank forcing us to go all the way to the Court of Appeals, but we ended up being able to help the class members," commented Attorney Patrick Perotti. "Once again another huge bank must do the right thing. They have to pay every person where they left a lien on the home in violation of law." Lake County law firm, Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A. and its 25 attorneys practice in Ohio and throughout the United States. They have successfully handled over $100 Million Dollars in class actions. With over 65 professional staff and lawyers, the firm offers a full range of legal services for businesses, individuals, and families. Recently Mr. Perotti was selected in the Top 75 Trial Lawyers in the United States. WILMINGTON TRUST: Board Sued Over Sale to M&T Bank -------------------------------------------------- Daniel Yi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Wilmington Trust Corporation, et al., Case No. 5959- (Del. Ch. Ct. November 5, 2010), brings claims against the directors of Wilmington Trust, M&T Bank Corporation, and MTB One, Inc. (an affiliate of M&T), for directly breaching or aiding breaches of fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the public shareholders of Wilmington Trust, arising out of their agreement to sell the Company to M&T for inadequate consideration and via a flawed process. On October 31, 2010, Wilmington Trust entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which M&T will acquire all of Wilmington Trust's outstanding shares of common stock for approximately $351 million, after which Wilmington Trust will merge into an M&T controlled entity. The proposed transaction has been approved by Wilmington Trust's Board of Directors. In his complaint, Mr. Yi says each Wilmington Trust common stockholder will receive 0.051372 shares of M&T common stock, with a value of $3.84 per share of Company common stock (based on the closing price of M&T common stock on Friday, October 29, 2010), and that the offer price is at a 46% discount to the closing trading price of the Company's common stock on October 29, 2010. "The proposed transaction is the product of a flawed process that is designed to ensure the sale of Wilmington Trust to M&T on terms preferential to M&T, but detrimental to plaintiff and the other public shareholders of Wilmington Trust," Mr. Yi said in his complaint. Wilmington Trust, through its subsidiary, Wilmington Trust Company, provides deposit-taking, lending, fiduciary, trustee, financial planning, investment consulting, asset management, insurance, broker-dealer, and administrative services in the United States and internationally. M&T operates as the holding company for M&T Bank and M&T Bank, National Association that provide commercial and retail banking services to individuals, corporations and other businesses, and institutions. Mr. Yi states that Wilmington Trust has been improperly valued and that shareholders will not likely receive adequate or fair value for their Wilmington Trust common stock in the proposed transaction. Further, Mr. Yi says the merger agreement contains terms designed to favor the proposed transaction and discourage alternative bids, including: (a) a non-solicitation clause, (b) a notification clause, meaning the Company must inform M&T of any unsolicited offer for the Company, and thereby provide M&T with an opportunity to match the unsolicited offer, and (c) a $30 million termination fee, payable by Wilmington Trust to M&T, representing "an unreasonable 8.5% of the total proposed transaction." The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LAONG, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 - and - Patricia C. Weiser, Esq. Henry J. Young, Esq. Loren R. Ungar, Esq. THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. 121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100 Wayne, PA 19807 Telephone: (610) 225-2677 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc., for over 30 years, has been a defendant in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 1, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation. The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50% shareholders of PC. The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products. As of the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against it, the Company was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos- related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims served on the Company. During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not been aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims. 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: Corning Inc. Involved in 10,300 Injury Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated is currently involved in about 10,300 other cases (about 38,700 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos and similar amounts of monetary damages per case, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 1, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation. Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about 11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of US$1 million per claim. The Company has defended those claims on the basis of the separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's asbestos products. Those cases have been covered by insurance without material impact to the Company to date. On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the resolution of all current and future asbestos claims against it and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or operations (the 2003 Plan). The 2003 Plan would have required the Company to relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation, contribute 25 million shares of Corning common stock, and pay a total of US$140 million in six annual installments (present value US$131 million at March 2003), beginning one year after the plan's effective date, with 5.5 percent interest from June 2004. In addition, the 2003 Plan provided that the Company would assign certain insurance policy proceeds from its primary insurance and a portion of its excess insurance. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying confirmation of the 2003 Plan for reasons it set out in a memorandum opinion. Several parties, including the Company, filed motions for reconsideration. On Jan. 29, 2009, a proposed plan of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) resolving issues raised by the Court in denying confirmation of the 2003 Plan was filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Confirmation hearings on the Amended PCC Plan were held in June 2010 and briefs discussing the legal issues have been filed. The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be US$642 million at Sept. 30, 2010, compared with an estimate of the liability of US$682 million at Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in Corning, N.Y., Corning Incorporated makes specialty glass and ceramics. Products include glass substrates for LCD televisions, computer monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates and filters for mobile emission control systems; optical fiber, cable, hardware & equipment for telecommunications networks; optical biosensors for drug discovery; and other advanced optics and specialty glass solutions for a number of industries including semiconductor, aerospace, defense, astronomy and metrology. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Still Party to 100 Main Rupture Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- About 100 lawsuits are still pending against Consolidated Edison, Inc. concerning its subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New York's steam main rupture in midtown Manhattan in July 2007. In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. The suits seek generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The Company has not accrued a liability for the suits. The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover most of the Company's costs, which the Company is unable to estimate, but which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the incident. Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity to 3.3 million residential and business customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc. and its subsidiaries -- Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. -- are still defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in New York State and federal courts. Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars. In 2008, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$9 million. At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$109 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$34 million. At Sept. 30, 2010, CECONY's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$9 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$9 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$104 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$34 million. Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity to 3.3 million residential and business customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still a Defendant in Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation continues to be a defendant in certain lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in products made by the Company, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 2, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for amounts below the expected defense costs. Headquartered in Batavia, N.Y., Graham Corporation designs and manufactures custom-engineered ejectors, vacuum systems, condensers, liquid ring pump packages and heat exchangers. Its equipment is used in critical applications in the petrochemical, oil refining and electric power generation industries, including cogeneration and geothermal plants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 191 Claims Pending v. Rogers Corp. at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation faced about 191 pending asbestos-related claims as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with about 167 pending claims at Dec. 31, 2009. The Company faced about 181 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010) The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. Of the 191 claims pending as of Sept. 30, 2010, about 62 claims do not specify the amount of damages sought, about 126 claims cite jurisdictional amounts, and three claims (less than 2% of the total pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional requirements. Of these three claims, one claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages of US$20 million each; and two claims each allege compensatory damages of US$65 million and punitive damages of US$60 million. These three claims name between 10 and 76 defendants. Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants, although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims. For the nine month period ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company was able to have 140 claims dismissed and settled 18 claims. The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been settled. Such settlements totaled about US$4.9 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$5.7 million during the first nine months of 2009 and about US$7.6 million for the full year 2009. Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures high performance, specialty-material-based products for applications including: portable communications, communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment, consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Posts $24.72M Sept. 30 Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc. accrued an asbestos liability of US$24,722,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$24,874,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2010. The Company's accrued asbestos liability was US$24,135,000 as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010) Headquartered in Long Island City, N.Y., Standard Motor Products, Inc. manufactures engine management and air conditioning replacement parts for the automotive aftermarket. Customers are auto parts warehouse distributors (CARQUEST and NAPA) and auto parts retailers (Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has $701MM Litigation Charge at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc.'s three-month and nine-month periods ended Oct. 3, 2010 include an additional US$701 million charge for asbestos litigation, according to a Company press release dated Nov. 2, 2010. This charge was related to the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Quigley Company, Inc. Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based pharmaceuticals firm. Its products include cholesterol-lowering Lipitor, pain management drugs Celebrex and Lyrica, pneumonia vaccine Prevnar, high-blood-pressure therapy Norvasc, and erectile dysfunction treatment Viagra. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Records $1.88BB Liability at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s net asbestos liability amounted to US$1.888 billion for three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 2, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's net asbestos liability was US$1.944 billion for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010) Paid asbestos-related losses and loss adjustment expense (LAE) were US$56 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010. Paid asbestos-related losses and LAE were US$176 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010. Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a financial holding company for a group of subsidiaries that provide investment products and life and property and casualty insurance to both individual and business customers in the United States. The Company continues to administer business previously sold in Japan and the U.K. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Sept. 30 Liability at $3.85M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s long-term asbestos abatement liability amounted to US$3,849,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$5,486,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 2, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's long-term asbestos abatement liability amounted to US$3,849,000 as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 20, 2010) Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. is a holding company that owns subsidiaries that operate long-term care facilities and provide a wide range of post-acute care services, with a strategic emphasis on sub-acute specialty medical care. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 540 Actions Ongoing v. MeadWestvaco at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2010, faced about 540 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of June 30, 2010, the Company was involved in about 550 asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010) As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant. At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities of about US$22 million, a significant portion of which relates to asbestos. Headquartered in Richmond, Va., MeadWestvaco Corporation is a global packaging company that provides packaging solutions to many of the world's brands in the healthcare, personal and beauty care, food, beverage, tobacco and home and garden industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases in Miss. v. Transocean Ltd. Units Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries are still defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi. In 2004, several of the Company's subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965 and 1986. A Special Master, appointed to administer these cases pre-trial, subsequently required that each individual plaintiff file a separate lawsuit, and the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints were then dismissed by the Circuit Courts. The amended complaints resulted in one of the Company's subsidiaries being named as a direct defendant in seven cases. The Company has or may have an indirect interest in an additional 17 cases. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing products in connection with drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In each of these cases, the complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that contained asbestos. None of the cases in which one of the Company's subsidiaries is a named defendant has been scheduled for trial in 2010, and the preliminary information available on these claims is not sufficient to determine if there is an identifiable period for alleged exposure to asbestos, whether any asbestos exposure in fact occurred, the vessels potentially involved in the claims, or the basis on which the plaintiffs would support claims that their injuries were related to exposure to asbestos. However, the initial evidence available would suggest that the Company would have significant defenses to liability and damages. In 2009, two cases that were part of the original 2004 multi- plaintiff suits went to trial in Mississippi against unaffiliated defendant companies which allegedly manufactured drilling-related products containing asbestos. The Company was not a defendant in either of these cases. One of the cases resulted in a substantial jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and this verdict was subsequently vacated by the trial judge on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof. While the court's decision is consistent with the Company's general evaluation of the strength of these cases, it has not been reviewed on appeal. The second case resulted in a verdict completely in favor of the defendants. There have been no other trials involving any of the parties to the original 21 complaints. Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 139 mobile offshore drilling units. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Face 1,049 Actions at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd., as of Sept. 30, 2010, was a defendant in about 1,049 lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A Company subsidiary, as of June 30, 2010, was a defendant in about 1,062 asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010) One of the Company's subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, fundings from settlements with insurers, assigned rights from insurers and "coverage-in-place" settlement agreements with insurers, and funds received from the cancellation of certain insurance policies. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the Company estimates that there are about 2,505 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against this subsidiary in 1990. Through Sept. 30, 2010, the amounts expended to resolve claims, including both attorneys' fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been material, and all deductibles with respect to the primary insurance have been satisfied. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits, and the Company cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can it predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of US$1 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary. Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 139 mobile offshore drilling units. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Facing 63,472 Claims at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation faced 63,472 unresolved asbestos claims at Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 75,357 unresolved asbestos claims at Sept. 30, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company faced 66,099 unresolved asbestos claims at June 30, 2010, compared with 74,957 unresolved claims at June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010) The Company is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. At Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 5,525 claims filed and 17,083 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem were at 19,844 and individual claimants were at 43,628. At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 6,379 claims filed and 6,728 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem were at 24,328 and individual claimants were at 51,029. Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into plastics resins like polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $58MM Sept. 30 Defense Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation recorded asbestos-related defense costs of US$58 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$40 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. The Company recorded US$36 million defense costs for asbestos- related claims during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$20 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010) The Company recorded asbestos-related resolution costs of US$40 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$77 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was US$22 million in the third quarter of 2010 (US$20 million in the third quarter of 2009) and US$58 million in the first nine months of 2010 (US$40 million in the first nine months of 2009), and was reflected in "Cost of sales." Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into plastics resins like polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Pursues Insurance Action in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation is still pursuing an asbestos-related comprehensive insurance coverage action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds (Insurance Litigation). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place with the Company regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Since the filing of the case, the Company has reached settlements with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation, including settlements reached with two significant carriers in the fourth quarter of 2009. The Insurance Litigation is ongoing. Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into plastics resins like polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $84MM Receivable at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability was US$84 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. At Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. The receivables for asbestos-related costs were US$326 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$532 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into plastics resins like polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Briggs & Stratton Corporation is subject to actions that relate to product liability (including asbestos-related liability), patent and trademark matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and dealers, competitors and employees. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wis., Briggs & Stratton Corporation manufactures air-cooled gas engines. Its engine customers are lawn and garden OEMs Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products, MTD, and Deere, and, to a lesser degree, generator, pressure washer, and pump makers. The Company also produces replacement engines and parts for aftermarkets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Chem. Faces Liability Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. (f/k/a Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc.) is involved in product liability, commercial and employment litigation, personal injury, property damage and other legal proceedings, including actions that allege harm caused by products the Company has allegedly made or used, containing silica, vinyl chloride monomer and asbestos. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. serves global industrial markets through a broad range of thermoset technologies, specialty products and technical support for customers in a diverse range of applications and industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: HECO Posts $35MM Sept. 30 Retirement Obligation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2010, subsidiary Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.'s asset retirement obligations were US$35 million related to Honolulu power plant Units Nos. 5 and 7 and US$12 million related to Waiau power plant Units 1 and 2. In July 2009, HECO hired an industrial hygienist to conduct an inspection of HECO's Honolulu power plant, which inspection indicated that retired Generating Units Nos. 5 and 7 at the plant were now deteriorating. The industrial hygienist recommended removing asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint. Based on prior assessments, the timing of the removal of asbestos and lead-based paint had not been estimable. Based on the inspection, however, HECO now intends to remove Units Nos. 5 and 7, including abating the asbestos and lead-based paint, over the period 2010 to 2013. Accordingly, HECO recorded an asset retirement obligation in September 2009. In August 2010, HECO recorded a similar asset retirement obligation related to removing retired Generating Units Nos. 1 and 2 at HECO's Waiau power plant, including abating the asbestos and lead-based paint, over the period 2011 to 2013. Headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is the holding company for Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) and some non-utility businesses. HECO serves more than 440,400 customers as the sole public electricity provider on the islands of Hawaii, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Tidewater Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------- Tidewater Inc. continues to be involved in various legal proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental matters. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in New Orleans, Tidewater Inc. provides offshore service vessels and equipment to the global offshore energy industry through the operation of a diversified fleet of marine service vessels. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contract Flooring Fined $10,800 for Mishandling ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a US$10,800 penalty to Contract Flooring & Interiors Inc., of Portland, for conducting an asbestos removal project in Corvallis without the required license, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated Nov. 4, 2010. The unlicensed asbestos abatement project took place between July 30, 2010 and Aug. 2, 2010 when workers mishandled asbestos- containing vinyl floor tiles when removing carpet in a building on the Hewlett-Packard campus at 1000 NE Circle Boulevard. While removing the carpet, workers disturbed about 456 square feet of the underlying asbestos-containing vinyl floor tile. The broken tiles likely released harmful asbestos fibers into the air. Neither Contract Flooring & Interiors nor its employees are licensed to perform asbestos abatement projects in Oregon. DEQ issued the penalty because by law asbestos abatement projects in Oregon must be conducted by licensed asbestos-abatement professionals. DEQ also noted that Contract Flooring & Interiors failed to properly package and label the removed tile waste and cited the company for accumulating asbestos-containing waste material. It did not issue a penalty for this violation. Contract Flooring & Interiors Inc., which is headquartered at 801 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, has until Nov. 15, 2010 to appeal the penalty. ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Hadley Man Penalized for Cleanup Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has levied a US$28,797.50 fine against L. Philip Lizotte, Jr. of South Hadley, Mass., for violating state asbestos regulations, according to a MassDEP press release dated Nov. 4, 2010. The violations were discovered during a MassDEP investigation into alleged illegal asbestos thermal insulation removal activities at a two-family rental property located in Holyoke. In January 2010, MassDEP conducted a site investigation and determined that Mr. Lizotte had removed asbestos thermal insulation from the basement of the property and placed the asbestos into trash bags. Mr. Lizotte then placed the trash bags into trash cans and loaded them into his truck. During these activities, Mr. Lizotte did not employ the proper asbestos-handling, notification and disposal procedures. Remnant asbestos insulation remained in the basement and on the ground outside of the building. Under the terms of a consent order issued by the MassDEP, Mr. Lizotte has agreed to pay a penalty of US$16,000. The balance of the US$28,797.50 penalty has been suspended provided that Mr. Lizotte remains in compliance with the state's asbestos regulations for a period of one year. Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in Springfield, said, "Improper removal and handling of asbestos- containing materials places tenants, as well as the general public at risk. When properly followed, the asbestos regulations provide for the protection of public health and the environment." Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos- containing materials, notification requirements, proper removal, handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures, or the asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate MassDEP regional office for assistance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edwards Case v. 81 Firms Filed Oct. 15 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dwight Edwards, on behalf of his father Forrest E. Edwards, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 81 defendant corporations in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va. on Oct. 15, 2010, The West Virginia Record reports. Forrest E. Edwards worked for about 30 years at Union Carbide Corporation as a laborer and millwright, according to the complaint. Dwight Edwards claims his father was directly and indirectly exposed to various insulating and building materials that contained asbestos and asbestos fibers. Forrest E. Edwards was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died on Oct. 19, 2008, according to the suit. Dwight Edwards seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He is being represented by William K. Schwartz, Esq. Case No. 10-C-1835 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Lewis Penalized GBP20T for Safety Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Retailer John Lewis was penalized for GBP20,000 after failing to do proper checks for asbestos while carrying out refurbishment work in Edinburgh, Scotland, BBC News reports. Morris and Spottiswood, which was contracted to carry out the renovation, was also fined GBP20,000. They both admitted to three health and safety offenses. Neither of the firms carried out the necessary checks for asbestos before they allowed the work to begin in 2008. At Edinburgh Sherriff court, Sheriff Elizabeth Jarvie said she had reduced both fines from GBP30,000 to reflect the guilty pleas. Defense lawyer Robert Fife for John Lewis said the department store, which had pre-tax profits of GBP164 million in the year leading up to January 2010, apologized for the incident. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brumbaugh, Knapp Actions filed in St. Clair Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The asbestos lawsuits of Jeraldeen Brumbaugh and Helen Knapp were filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., on Oct. 26, 2010, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. Mrs. Brumbaugh filed her lawsuit against 40 defendant companies on behalf of her recently deceased husband, Eddy Brumbaugh, while Mrs. Knapp of Washington filed her suit against defendant companies on behalf of her deceased husband, Carl Knapp. In Mrs. Brumbaugh's suit, she claims that Mr. Brumbaugh's exposure to asbestos began when he was a member of U.S. Navy from 1952 until 1955. He continued to be exposed to asbestos throughout his subsequent careers as a laborer at Premier Refinery from 1959 until 1960 and as a mudder and taper at various construction sites. In Mrs. Knapp's complaint, she claims that Mr. Knapp's exposure to asbestos began when he was a laborer for Western Pine Saw Mill from 1955 until 1959 and from 1961 until 1967. He continued to be exposed to asbestos fibers when he joined the U.S. Army from 1959 until 1961 and from 1962 until 1964 and when he worked as a cook, drywaller and laborer for Highland House Restaurant from 1968 until 1979 and as a residential construction worker from 1963 until 1978. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the plaintiffs. W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq., W. Casey Harris, Esq., and M. Clay Fostel, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will serve of counsel for Mrs. Knapp. Mr. Brumbaugh passed away on May 29, 2010. Mr. Knapp died on July 1, 2010 because of his condition, Mrs. Knapp claims. In her 10-count complaint, Mrs. Brumbaugh seeks a judgment of more than US$150,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$50,000 and economic damages of more than US$200,000. In her six-count complaint, Mrs. Knapp seeks a judgment of more than US$150,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and economic damages of more than US$50,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valentino Case v. 26 Firms Ongoing in Meigs Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos case filed by Charles Valentino against 26 defendant corporations is ongoing in Meigs County Common Pleas Court, Ohio, Justice News Flash reports. The wrongful death lawsuit claims exposure to asbestos products in the late 1960s and early 1970s caused Mr. Valentino's wife, Margaret Valentino, to develop mesothelioma. Mr. Valentino, of Dublin, Ohio, brought on the wrongful death litigation after Mrs. Valentino's case of mesothelioma proved fatal in August 2009, two months after she was diagnosed with the rare disease. The lawsuit claims Mrs. Valentino "was exposed to asbestos, products containing asbestos or machinery using asbestos products" while employed as a nurse at three different hospitals in the Columbus region. The hospitals included St. Anthony's Hospital, Mount Carmel Health and St. Ann's Hospital. Allied Corporation, which is a successor of Cleveland-based Bendix Corp., was named as the primary defendant in the pending wrongful death case. About 25 other companies were also sued. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FDS Waste to Pay GBP3,479 for Disposal Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Bournemouth Magistrates' Court ordered Philip Pidgley, director of FDS Waste Services Ltd, to pay GBP3,479 in fines and costs for violating asbestos-related regulations, the Daily Echo reports. Mr. Pidgley, of Poole, Dorset, England, admitted breaking the terms of his permit after one-and-a-half tons of asbestos was discovered at his premises. The case brought by the Environment Agency, followed a routine inspection of FDS Waste Services' transfer station site, at Clapcotts Yard, Mannings Heath Road, Poole, last September 2010. Environment Agency officers found the cement-bonded asbestos in a skip at the bottom of the yard, which was covered by eight other skips. Officers said Mr. Pidgley was unable to say where the hazardous waste had come from, or explain why there was no paperwork connected to the load. FDS Waste Services normally deals with non-hazardous waste like wood, plastics, builders' rubble and other inert materials at its Clapcotts Yard premises. The Company is permitted to accept asbestos as long as it is immediately segregated and the Environment Agency informed, which did not happen in this case. However, Mr. Pidgley told officers the skip had arrived earlier on the day of their inspection. Appearing at the court hearing on Oct. 25, 2010, Mr. Pidgley was fined GBP2,500 and ordered to pay GBP979 costs. The Company was given a 12-month conditional discharge and also ordered to pay GBP979 costs. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shockley Case v. 57 Companies Filed on Oct. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- Perry and Dora Shockley, on Oct. 26, 2010, filed an asbestos- related lawsuit against 57 defendant corporations in St. Clair County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. The suit claims that Mr. Shockley's exposure to asbestos began at age 11 when he worked as a milk truck driver. In their complaint, the Shockleys allege the defendant companies caused Mr. Shockley to develop lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career. According to the complaint, Mr. Shockley worked as a milk truck driver, a press operator, at Daniels Construction, at a tobacco plant, at American Enka, at Oakridge National Lab, at Kingston Power Plant, at Tennessee Eastman Corp., at Holston Defense Corp., at Atomin Bomb Plant, at E.I. DuPont, at Bull Run Steam Plant and at his own fabricating shop. In their 10-count complaint, the Shockleys seek judgment of more than US$50,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and economic damages of more than US$200,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems just. They also seek punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants and to deter similar conduct in the future. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Shockleys in Case No. 10-L-560. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Opposing Move Filed by Asbestos Trusts --------------------------------------------------------------- Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, a subsidiary of EnPro Industries Inc., is opposing a motion made by asbestos trusts created in four other bankruptcy reorganizations, Bloomberg reports. George R. Hodges, a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge in Charlotte, N.C., must decide whether to cede control of part of the reorganization of Garlock to a bankruptcy judge in Delaware. If granted, the motion in substance would permit the Delaware bankruptcy court to decide whether and to what extent Garlock can require the trusts to produce documents and information about asbestos claims. Garlock previously filed a motion to be argued Nov. 18, 2010 to authorize taking discovery from the trusts created under the Chapter 11 plans for other companies. Garlock says it needs the information to craft its own reorganization. In their Nov. 2, 2010 motion, the trusts say that Garlock and other companies currently reorganizing asbestos debt "launched a massive and intrusive discovery effort" against the trusts as "part of an improper and concerted effort to use the trusts to obtain discovery that no defendant could obtain in the tort system." The trusts say Garlock is part of a "coordinated, nationwide attempt to seek inappropriate discovery from the trusts." The trusts want Judge Hodges to modify the so-called automatic stay so they can sue Garlock in Delaware. In the Delaware action, the trusts will seek a ruling that the discovery sought by Garlock and other companies in Chapter 11 is improper. Garlock argues that the trusts are trying to pre-empt a ruling by Judge Hodges at the Nov. 18, 2010 hearing on the question of whether discovery is proper. Garlock, a gasket maker based in Palmyra, N.Y., filed under Chapter 11 in June 2010 to deal with the last 100,000 asbestos claims. Non-bankrupt affiliates are defendants on 30,000 claims. The case is styled In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 10- 31607, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District North Carolina (Charlotte). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bolton Joiner's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of Ernest Gittins, a joiner from Horwich, Bolton, England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Bolton News reports. Mr. Gittins, who died at the age of 70, had worked as a joiner for 44 years after leaving school aged 16. His wife, Irene Gittens, learned that he had been exposed to asbestos when she spoke to former work colleagues, who attended his funeral. Mrs. Gittins told Bolton Coroners Court, "Other people told me that he used to cut asbestos sheets with an electric saw. He did not wear any protective clothing, as there was nothing then, they said." Mr. Gittins became unwell in January 2010, and doctors thought he had pulled a muscle in his shoulder. Assistant deputy coroner Peter Watson recorded a verdict of death caused by industrial disease. He said, "Clearly he was a very hard working man for many years, working in conditions that would perhaps not be acceptable in this day and age." ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Awarded $150T to Reduce Asbestos Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded US$150,000 to Louisiana to help reduce asbestos exposure in schools and state buildings, according to an EPA press release dated Nov. 4, 2010. The project will encompass compliance monitoring, compliance assistance and public outreach. The project is covered under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). The program provides protection through on-site surveillance where asbestos is found. AHERA requires local education agencies to inspect schools for asbestos-containing building material and prepare management plans to reduce the hazard. The Act establishes a program for the training and accreditation of individuals performing certain types of asbestos work. Although asbestos is hazardous, human risk of asbestos disease depends upon exposure. Removal is often not the best course of action to reduce asbestos exposure. Improper removal may create a dangerous situation where none previously existed. EPA only requires removal in order to prevent significant public exposure to asbestos, such as during building renovation or demolition. EPA recommends in-place management whenever asbestos is discovered. Instead of removal, implementation of a management plan will usually control fiber release when materials are not significantly damaged and are not likely to be disturbed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Marshall Co. Bldg. Estimated at $30T ---------------------------------------------------------------- The asbestos removal at an old building in Marshall County, Iowa, was once used to as a mental health sanatorium but has stood vacant for decades, will take place over the winter and the County had estimated US$30,000 for the project, the Times-Republican reports. The Marshall County Board of Supervisors, on Nov. 8, 2010, accepted a bid that will start the demolition process for the building, which sits south of the current jail. The bids were only for the removal of asbestos material. Supervisor Ron Goecke said, "We cannot demolish -- take that building down and get rid of the rubble -- until that asbestos is removed." The supervisors received three bids for the asbestos removal, ranging from US$17,960 to nearly US$43,000. All the bids included removal and disposal, but Supervisor Pat Brooks also said there was a problem with the highest bidder, who said the disposal would take place in the Marshall County landfill. That facility does not accept asbestos. However, Brooks said that all three were capable of doing the job because they are licensed in the state of Iowa. The low bidder, Advanced Environmental Testing and Abatement, is based in Waterloo. The total cost of the demolition is expected to be about US$150,000. That land is expected to be sold during a public auction taking place Nov. 23, 2010. Sealed bids can be submitted by 4:30 p.m. Nov. 22, 2010. However, a sealed bid is not necessary for those wanting to bid in person. The acreage for sale includes 74 tillable acres and 44 acres of pasture, for a total of 118 acres. The winning bidder must put 10 percent down on the day of the auction, with the rest due at closing, which must take place on or before Jan. 15, 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups to Fight Aussie Govt. Over Sucrogen Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos groups say they will fight the Australian Government regarding the latter's decision to approve the sale of CSR's sugar business, Sucrogen, ABC News reports. On Nov. 8, 2010, Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan gave the green light for Sucrogen's sale to Singapore-listed agribusiness Wilmar. Mr. Swan says current and future asbestos injury claimants from Sucrogen's owners, CSR, which used to manufacture products with asbestos, will be protected. He says CSR has already publicly stated that it will meet its asbestos liabilities. However, the Asbestos Diseases Foundation's Barry Robson says there has been no clear commitment from the company or the Government. He said, "We're prepared to start demonstrating against the Government and the Treasurer to get our point across that this sale cannot go ahead unless there is an absolute watertight guarantee that x amount of dollars from this sale is put into a bank account on behalf of victims." ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Tyneside Boss Fined for Safety Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- The boss of a refurbishment company has been fined for failing to provide adequate information, instruction and training to workers in the proper procedures when dealing with asbestos, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated Nov. 5, 2010. Neil Brown, 45, trading as High View Services, of High View, Wallsend, North Tyneside, England, was fined GBP360 by North Tyneside Magistrates' Court on Nov. 5, 2010 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 10(1)(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. He was also ordered to pay GBP360 costs. The court heard how the breach came to light on Jan. 6, 2009 during the investigation of an asbestos-related incident at a North Tyneside Council house in Killingworth, the home of Amanda Cleminson. The incident occurred during a heating upgrade of the property, which involved Mr. Brown's company. The HSE investigation found that while work conducted by Mr. Brown's employees could readily bring them into contact with asbestos, they had not been given any asbestos awareness training by Mr. Brown, despite a legal requirement to do so. After the case, HSE Inspector Graham Watson said, "Any employer who conducts work which may result in their employees coming into contact with asbestos must make sure they receive adequate information, instruction and training to help control not just the risks to themselves but others who may also be exposed. "You are most likely to find asbestos in buildings built or refurbished before 2000. Anyone conducting refurbishment work in such buildings, where they are likely to disturb the fabric of the building, must therefore make sure that their employees are properly trained. This includes not only making sure there are arrangements for training new employees but also providing regular refresher training." Exposure to asbestos is the biggest single cause of work-related deaths, with around 4,000 people a year dying from asbestos- related diseases. Workers most at risk are those who carry out building maintenance and refurbishment work such as electricians, plasterers, plumbers and carpenters. ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Subject to Exposure Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Certain of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries have been subject in recent years to asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 3, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain components sold by the Company's subsidiaries. Most of these claims name numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. Headquartered in Livonia, Mich., TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and related aftermarkets. The Company conducts substantially all of its operations through subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Ladish Co. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ladish Co., Inc. continues to be named a defendant in a number of asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of Nov. 4, 2010, the Company has nine individual claims pending in Mississippi, one claim pending in Wisconsin and two individual claims pending in Illinois. As of July 29, 2010, the Company had 11 individual claims pending in Mississippi and four individual claims pending in Illinois. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010) The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The Company's only exposure to asbestos involves products the Company purchased from third parties. Given that the consortium of insurers are handling the defense of the Company, combined with the lack of actual exposure or prior negative judgments, the Company has not made any provision in its financial statements for the asbestos litigation. Headquartered in Cudahy, Wis., Ladish Co., Inc. designs, produces and markets forged and cast metal components for load-bearing and fatigue-resisting applications in the jet engine, aerospace and industrial markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 56,960 at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation had pending about 56,960 asbestos claims as of Sept. 30, 2010, as compared with about 62,360 as of Dec. 31, 2009 and 61,820 as of Sept. 30, 2009. The Company faced about 58,920 pending asbestos claims as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010) The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos- containing insulating material in turbines sold for power- generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships. During the third quarter of 2010, the Company received about 2,610 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 4,570 claims. The Company's total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were about US$17.8 million for 2009 and US$15 million for 2008. Headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation is comprised of the following segments: Entertainment (CBS Television, comprised of the CBS Television Network, CBS Television Studios, CBS Studios International and CBS Television Distribution; CBS Films and CBS Interactive), Cable Networks (Showtime Networks, Smithsonian Networks and CBS College Sports Network), Publishing (Simon & Schuster), Local Broadcasting (CBS Television Stations and CBS Radio) and Outdoor (CBS Outdoor). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Has $2.34MM Asbestos, Bankruptcy Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls subsidiary recorded asbestos and bankruptcy charges of US$2,343,000 during the three months ended Oct. 3, 2010, compared with US$1,977,000 during the three months ended Sept. 27, 2009. Leslie recorded asbestos and bankruptcy charges of US$30,603,000 during the nine months ended Oct. 3, 2010, compared with US$13,682,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 27, 2010. Current Leslie asbestos and bankruptcy related liabilities were US$80,064,000 as of Oct. 3, 2010 and US$12,476,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009. Long-term Leslie asbestos liability was US$47,785,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009. CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, makes and markets valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the aerospace, energy and industrial markets. The Company is headquartered in Burlington, Mass. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Posts $2.3MM Litigation Expense at Oct. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$2,339,000 during the three months ended Oct. 1, 2010, compared with US$1,845,000 during the three months ended Oct. 2, 2009, according to a Company press release dated Nov. 4, 2010. The Company's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$4,543,000 during the three months ended July 2, 2010, compared with US$4,027,000 during the three months ended July 3, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2010) The Company's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$10,763,000 during the nine months ended Oct. 1, 2010, compared with US$8,838,000 during the nine months ended Oct. 2, 2009. Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$2,202,000 during the three months ended Oct. 1, 2010. Asbestos liability and defense income was US$4,303,000 during the three months ended Oct. 2, 2009. Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$4,179,000 during the nine months ended Oct. 1, 2010. Asbestos liability and defense income was US$1,176,000 during the nine months ended Oct. 2, 2009. Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation produces critical fluid-handling products and technologies. Through its global operating subsidiaries, the Company manufactures positive displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power generation, commercial marine, defense and general industrial markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Records $138.72MM Liability at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was US$138,729,330 as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$147,093,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$138,001,259 as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010) The Company's current liability was US$25 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$30 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$87,862,580 as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$95,430,060 as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$18 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$20 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two business segments: Forged and Cast Rolls and Air and Liquid Processing. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment produces and sells forged-hardened steel rolls and cast iron and steel rolls to manufacturers of steel and aluminum throughout the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,262 Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced 8,262 open asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 959 settled or dismissed claims. The gross settlement and defense costs were US$13,044 during the period. The Company was party to 8,155 open asbestos-related claims during the six months ended June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010) Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries (Asbestos Liability) and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution and another former division of the Company. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. In 2006, for the first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability against one of the Company's subsidiaries was tried to a jury. The trial resulted in a defense verdict. Plaintiffs appealed that verdict and in 2008 the California Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers). Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity allocation formulas, for a substantial majority of the pending claims for Asbestos Liability. The claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution of the Company, about 420 as of Sept. 30, 2010, are not included within the Coverage Arrangement. The one claim filed against the former division also is not included within the Coverage Arrangement. The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden Buffalo, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former subsidiary of the Company. The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization on access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than the limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access the policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the Products will erode the coverage under the policies available to the Company and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other historical products of the Company and its subsidiaries covered by the applicable policies. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two business segments: Forged and Cast Rolls and Air and Liquid Processing. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment produces and sells forged-hardened steel rolls and cast iron and steel rolls to manufacturers of steel and aluminum throughout the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Still Party to Howden Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Howden Buffalo, Inc.'s asbestos-related insurance lawsuit against its former parent, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On Aug. 4, 2009, Howden filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the Company, two insurance companies that allegedly issued policies to Howden that are not relevant to the Company, and two other insurance companies that issued excess insurance policies covering certain subsidiaries of the Company (Excess Policies), but that are not yet part of the Coverage Arrangement. In the lawsuit, Howden seeks a declaratory judgment from the court as to the respective rights and obligations of Howden, the Company and the insurance carriers under the Excess Policies. One of the excess carriers and the Company have filed cross-claims against each other seeking declarations regarding their respective rights and obligations under Excess Policies issued by that carrier. The Company's cross-claim also seeks damages for the carrier's failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two business segments: Forged and Cast Rolls and Air and Liquid Processing. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment produces and sells forged-hardened steel rolls and cast iron and steel rolls to manufacturers of steel and aluminum throughout the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenneco Inc. continues to be subject to a number of lawsuits initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 8, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the early 2000s, the Company was named in nearly 20,000 complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court and the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to asbestos from the Company's product categories. Most of these claims have been dismissed and the Company's current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's subsidiaries. The balance of the claims is related to alleged exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products. A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim against the Company. Many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number of each in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries. Headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., Tenneco Inc. manufactures automotive emission control and ride control products and systems. The Company serves both original equipment (OE) vehicle designers and manufacturers and the repair and replacement markets, or aftermarket, globally through leading brands, including Monroe, Rancho, Clevite Elastomers and Fric Rottm ride control products and Walker, Fonostm, and Gillettm emission control products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Harbinger in Miss., La. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harbinger Group Inc. is involved in multiple complaints in Mississippi and Louisiana state courts and in a federal multi- district litigation alleging injury from exposure to asbestos on offshore drilling rigs and shipping vessels formerly owned or operated by the Company's offshore drilling and bulk-shipping affiliates. The Company has aggregate reserves for its legal and environmental matters of about US$300,000 at both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in New York, Harbinger Group Inc. is a holding company that is owned by Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd. and Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. The Company's principal focus is to identify and evaluate business combinations or acquisitions of businesses. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Shipyards Posts $2.7MM Reserves at Oct. 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Shipyards Corporation, as of Oct. 3, 2010, has recorded an asbestos-related bodily injury liability reserve of US$2.7 million and a bodily injury insurance receivable of US$1.9 million, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 10, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances, generally asbestos, at closed former facilities. In addition to the Company, the cases generally include other ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances. The Company is currently defending eight "malignant" claims and about 172 "non-malignant" claims. The Company also includes in its reserves acknowledgement of 354 "inactive" claims that could become active upon the presentation of additional evidence of disease and/or exposure by those claimants and/or renewed prosecution of their claims. Headquartered in Seattle, Todd Shipyards Corporation is a private (or non-Governmental) shipyard operator. Most of its business is repair and maintenance work on commercial and federal government vessels engaged in various maritime activities in the Pacific Northwest. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Curtiss-Wright --------------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation, or its subsidiaries, has been named in a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case. The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that the Company will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. The Company does maintain insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and it said it believes adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability. Headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a company that designs, manufactures, and overhauls precision components and systems and provides products and services to the aerospace, defense, automotive, shipbuilding, processing, oil, petrochemical, agricultural equipment, railroad, power generation, security, and metalworking industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Devon Firm Fined Over Disposal Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- The operators of a North Devon scrap yard and skip hire company have been found guilty of illegally burning and burying waste including asbestos at a site near Bideford, England, according to an Environment Agency press release dated Oct. 28, 2010. The case was brought by the Environment Agency. After a five day trial at Exeter Crown Court, Petra Bond and Julian Goddard of Auto Disposals and Bideford Skip Hire were convicted of a total of seven offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. A jury heard how in 2006 there were a series of fires the site that damaged a large asbestos-clad shed and pile of mixed waste. Ms. Bond, who was in control of the site at the time, instructed an employee to remove the asbestos from the building. He placed it in a number of skips, one of which was later legitimately removed by a waste disposal company. Following the last fire, Ms. Bond is alleged to have told the same employee to get rid of the fire-damaged wastes as quickly as possible to "cut costs." She instructed him to take it to an adjoining property, Goodleigh Cottage, excavate a hole and bury it in an area just behind a wall. A second consignment of asbestos, stored on several pallets, was buried in a corner of the waste transfer station to allow a car park to be constructed. Once again, this was done on the instruction of Ms. Bond. It is estimated the damaged shed contained around 15 tons of bonded asbestos of which only 1.8 tons could be accounted for by Ms. Bond. Witnesses, including three former employees, told the court how later in 2007 Bideford Skip Hire supplied skips to a business premises in Torrington where sand was used to mop up a diesel spillage. The skips were later stored in a car park at Goodleigh Cottage where they started leaking diesel. Ms. Bond told workers at the site to dig a hole and bury the diesel contaminated waste. When an employee asked why she would not dispose of it legitimately, Bond said it was "too expensive." A couple of skips of mixed waste were also buried at the same time. Also in 2007, Ms. Bond instructed site staff to move and bury a large pile of mixed waste within the waste transfer site. In early 2008 site operations were taken over by Purgamentum Waste Management Ltd with both Petra Bond and Julian Goddard as directors of the company. In May 2008, an Agency officer visited the site and found an incinerator called an Air Curtain Burner being used. Mr. Goddard had been previously advised by an environment protection officer at Torridge District Council that it was an offence to operate this type of burner without a permit. The Agency officer instructed site workers to stop burning material. He saw treated, painted and mixed wood was being burnt along with general mixed waste. The court heard how the defendants had denied the Environment Agency access to the site on a number of occasions during the investigation and had been unhelpful and obstructive. Eventually the Agency used its powers under the Section 108 of the Environment Act to enter the site. A magistrate's warrant was issued and on May 29, 2008 a team of Agency officers gained access and carried out a full site investigation. Further excavations under a court warrant were undertaken in March 2009. Large quantities of waste including asbestos and mixed waste were found exactly where the former employees said it would be found. In one area, a liquid described as a "malodorous leachate" was discovered as waste was being excavated. A witness told the court he estimated between 2,000 -- 3,000 tons of waste had been illegally buried at the site and in the grounds of a neighboring property. Richard Cloke for the Environment Agency said, "The operators of this site deliberately chose to flout the law and dispose of hazardous waste in a highly illegal and irresponsible fashion. They were motivated by money and a desire to increase profits and save on costs. In behaving in this reckless manner they ignored the concerns of their employees and put human health and the environment at risk." The case was adjourned for sentencing until early December 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simon's Charged for Disposal Breach in Parklea --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaza West of the Dyldam Group sued contractor Simon's Earthworks for using truckloads of asbestos-contaminated soil as landfill at a housing development in Parklea, New South Wales, 1233 ABC Newcastle reports. Plaza West is suing Simon's Earthworks and one of its directors in a civil case in the New South Wales Supreme Court. Plaza West alleges the contractor falsified invoices, paid kickbacks to a site supervisor and wrongly claimed payments for work on a Parramatta site, now called Entrada, in 2007 and 2008. Returning fire, the contractor's lawyer, Daniel Feller SC, says Plaza West's evidence cannot be relied on. They allege that in 2006, asbestos-contaminated soil was dug up at the Parramatta site and taken to a Dyldam development site in Parklea. The court has been shown records indicating that on the same day, contaminated material were being loaded onto trucks and six truckloads went to Parklea in western Sydney. Plaza West's lawyer, Michael Rudge SC, objected to the claims on the basis they were irrelevant to the case. However, the judge allowed the claims and that documentary evidence is not yet publicly available. But the project manager for the development, Fayad Lee Fayad, was shown invoices he had signed for work done on site, including the supervised removal of asbestos-contaminated material. The Environment Department is investigating illegal dumping claims against Dyldam. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Korea Woman Files Appeal Regarding Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Korea Times says that Yoko Okada who suffers from asbestosis is appealing a decision made by the courts stating she could not receive compensation from the factory where her parents worked because she was never employed there, the Mesothelioma Resource Center reports. Ms. Okada is filing an asbestos lawsuit against the Japanese government for "not informing people about the possible health threat of the material and encouraging them to work in the mill." Ms. Okada, a second-generation Korean raised in Japan, claims she spent much of her life as a child at a factory that produced asbestos. People like Ms. Okada whose parents often migrated from Korea to the island nation are called Zainichi. Other Zainichis were present at the hearing, claiming they or relatives of theirs suffered from an asbestos-related disease. Many of the plaintiffs had already won their cases but the state government appealed the decisions. According to the Times, many other workers suffering from asbestos may be living in pain, but are afraid to come forward because of prejudices. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Trascher Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed a court's ruling in a case involving asbestos styled Joseph C. Trascher, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. f/k/a Avondale Industries, Inc., et al. The Panel entered judgment in Case No. 2010-CC-1287 on Sept. 17, 2010. Plaintiffs brought action against decedent's employer and others for decedent's alleged asbestos exposure which occurred during his employment at shipyard. The District Court, Orleans Parish, denied exception of insurer of seven executive officers of employer on basis of improper venue. The Court of Appeal denied insurer's application for supervisory writs. Insurer applied for review which was granted. This matter arose out of a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs in Orleans Parish against various defendants based on alleged asbestos exposure to their decedent, which occurred during his employment at Avondale Shipyards in Jefferson Parish. Commercial Union Insurance Company, in its capacity as insurer of seven executive officers of Avondale Industries who reside outside of Orleans Parish, filed an exception of improper venue. The district court denied Commercial Union's exception, and the court of appeal denied Commercial Union's application for supervisory writs. This application followed. The judgment of the district court is reversed. The exception of improper venue was granted. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. ********* 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 * * *