/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101203.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 3, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 239 Headlines ADAMS GOLF: 1999 Delaware Lawsuit Concluded ALLIANZ LIFE: Sued for Cheating Buyers of Equity Index Annuities AMPAL-AMERICAN: Motions to Certify Class Actions Still Pending ART TECHNOLOGY: Appeal on Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending BALDWIN MUTUAL: Alabama High Court Reverses Certification Order BAYER PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Birth Control Pills BOTTOMLINE TECH: Appeal on Suit Settlement Remains Pending BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Calif. Class Action Suit Still Pending CAPELLA EDUCATION: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Minnesota CHARLES SCHWAB: Settlement Amendment Gets Preliminary Approval CONSOL GAS: Faces Class Action Over Gas Drilling Royalties EL PASO CORP: Appeal on ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal Remains Pending ERNST & YOUNG: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage FOUR ALTRIA: Four Class Suits Over Light Cigarettes Rejected FUSHI COPPERWELD: Faces Class Action Over Fu Proposal GALEOS LLC: Sued in California for False Advertising GEEKNET: Appeal on IPO Lawsuit Settlement Still Pending GOOGLE INC: Sued for Illegally Stealing Data From Wi-Fi Networks HEALTHWAYS INC: Court Approves Settlement of Tennessee Suit HEALTHWAYS INC: Preliminary Approval of Suit Settlement Pending HOULIHAN SMITH: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage ISTAR FINANCIAL: Discovery Process in New York Lawsuit Ongoing J. CREW: Being Sold for Too Little, New York Suit Claims KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Adds Homestead Homeowners to Settlement List LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Race Discrimination Suit in Texas MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Amended Complaint Still Pending in Texas MEDIACOM: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims MEDIACOM COMMS: Awaits Final Judgment in "Ogg" Suit in Missouri MEDIACOM COMMS: Still Faces Cable Subscribers' Lawsuit in New York MEDIACOM COMMS: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Suits in Delaware NATIONAL PENN: Class Action Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued Over Variable Loan Rate Policies NOVARTIS AG: Judge Gives Final OK to Sex-Bias Class Settlement ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Genesee County Class Action ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Court Stays Consumer Class Action in New York PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Settles Class Action Over Jail Conditions PROSHARES: Zamansky Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in ETF Class Suit QUIBIDS LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices ROME BANCORP: Defends Merger-Related Shareholder Class Suits SANFORD BROWN: Judge Certifies Class Action SHOPPERS DRUG: Faces Class Action From Two Associate-Owners STAMPS.COM: Appeal on Securities Suit Settlement Remains Pending TEMPLE-INLAND INC: Faces Five Class Action Suits in Illinois TOYOTA MOTOR: Acceleration Class Suits Survive Dismissal Motion TWENTIETH CENTURY: Settles Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message Ad UNITED STATES: Sued Over Gay Service Members' Separation Pay Cut WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling on Job Bias Suit YELLOWSTONE, MT: Judge Allows Class Action Over Wage Policies Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Unit Posts $467.3M Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Posts $175.5MM Sept. 30 Insurance Coverage ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Posts $41.6MM Asbestos Charge at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $577.5MM Sept. 30 Gross Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Has 15,594 Abex Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Estimates $759.8MM Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records $164.8MM Receivable at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Insurance Action v. McDermott Still Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Antoine Action v. McDermott Units Still Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enterprise GP Has $64.2MM AROs at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duncan Energy Posts $7.5MM AROs at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water Units Still Face Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Records $1.3MM Sept. 30 Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $163.5MM Reserve at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, NATCO Still Facing Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Facing Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3,500 Cases Ongoing v. Tyco Int'l. at Sept. 24 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Has $2.9MM Asbestos Liabilities at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Unit Posts $2.3Mil ARO Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Pending Against Regal Beloit ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Ventures Increases Reserve by $2.10MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. VWR Funding ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali, D/C Still Subject to Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: 76 Injury Actions Ongoing v. Belden at Oct. 27 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Remains Party to Cryovac Deal Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air (Canada) Facing Thundersky's Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 5 Hilco Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Faces 1 Exposure Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers Sept. 30 A&E Liability at $2.44MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker, Ariz. to Get $56T Grant for Remediation ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Govt. to Boost Asbestos Payments to AU$311T ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mitchells & Butlers Fined for Safety Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guy, Brock May Be Liable for $1MM in Legal Fees ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Action v. 82 Firms Filed Nov. 10 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $15,600 Fine on Unlicensed Projects ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tower Hamlets Councilor's Death Due to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Facility on Duwamish Site Needs Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Lawyer Gets $9.25MM for Newport News Client ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cook Family Investigates Death Due to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA Govt. Reaffirms Obligation to Combat Hazards ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Dismissal in Reaser Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found in Valhalla Apartments in Edmonton ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Vacates Board Decision in Clark ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Denies Petition in Stonewall Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Devon Firm Indicted on Asbestos Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honda Ordered to Pay JPY54MM in Asbestos Damages ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carper Action v. Honeywell, John Crane Ongoing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Welcomes News on Mesothelioma Awareness ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Suit v. Chevron, BP Transferred to MDL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Facing 11,300 Actions at Sept. 24 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx's Long-Term Reserve at $39.5M in Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 202 Actions Pending v. Entrx Corp. at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx Posts $46MM Insurance Coverage at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Action Still Ongoing v. Metalclad in Calif. ********* ADAMS GOLF: 1999 Delaware Lawsuit Concluded ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Adams Golf, Inc., filed in 1999 in Delaware has been fully resolved, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On June 17, 2010, the Court approved the final class action settlement regarding the consolidated securities class action filed in June 1999 in the United States District Court of the District of Delaware. The Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against all defendants in the litigation. The settlement provided for a total payment to the class of $16.5 million in cash and a payment of the first $1.25 million, after attorneys fees and costs, actually received (if any) by the company in connection with the Company's litigation against its former insurance broker Thilman & Filipini, LLC and the Company's former insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company. Of the $16.5 million cash settlement amount, $5 million was paid by us, which the Company accrued as a liability during the quarter ended September 30, 2009 and was paid to the settlement fund in March 2010. As part of the settlement, the underwriters for the IPO released the Company from any indemnification obligation. On July 19, 2010, the appeals period for the final order of dismissal expired and the litigation was fully and finally resolved. ALLIANZ LIFE: Sued for Cheating Buyers of Equity Index Annuities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Mccue at Courthouse News Service reports that Allianz Life Insurance fraudulently marketed its equity index annuities, basing their "monthly index adjustment" on the day before the annuities were purchased, instead of the day they were purchased, a class action claims in Clark County Court, Las Vegas. The three named plaintiffs claim that Allianz representatives showed them brochures and other marketing materials that promised Allianz would calculate the monthly index adjustment of their annuities using the date of purchase to provide a favorable valuation for the purchasers. But once they bought and were "locked into" the annuities, the class claims, they discovered that Allianz used the 1-day backdating "to obtain a more favorable valuation for Allianz, and a less favorable valuation for plaintiffs and the plaintiff class." The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract, breach of faith and fair dealing, consumer fraud and unjust enrichment. A copy of the Complaint in Rivera, et al. v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, et al., Case No. 10-629902 (Nev. Dist. Ct., Nevada Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/30/Allianz.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Artemus W. Ham, Esq. Erica D. Entsminger, Esq. MAINOR EGLET, LLP 400 So. Fourth Street, 6th Floor Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 450-5400 AMPAL-AMERICAN: Motions to Certify Class Actions Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to certify a series of class actions against subsidiaries of Ampal-American Israel Corp. remain pending, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On January 31, 2010, Ampal, through its indirect wholly owned subsidiary Merhav Ampal Energy Ltd. and MAE's wholly owned subsidiary 012 Smile Telecom Ltd., closed the transaction to purchase the business of 012 Smile Communications Ltd., pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement for 1.2 billion New Israeli Shekels or approximately $322 million. 012 Smile Telecom Ltd. In May 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012 Smile with the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel. The motion alleges that 012 Smile unlawfully charges its customers with higher tariffs than the tariffs agreed. The total amount of the action against 012 Smile is approximately NIS 3.0 million (approximately $0.81 million). The Company cannot currently estimate the range of possible loss. 012 Smile has not yet replied to the motion. The motion has not yet been scheduled to be heard. The motion has not yet been scheduled to be heard. In September 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012 Smile with the Tel-Aviv District Court in Israel. The plaintiff alleges that 012 Smile pays rebates without adding interest or linkage to the Israeli Consumer Price Index. The amount of the personal claim is set by the plaintiff at approximately NIS 1.2. In the event of certification of the suit as a class action, the estimated amount of the claim by the plaintiff will be approximately NIS 11.17 million (approximately $3 million). The Company cannot currently estimate the range of possible loss. 012 Smile has not yet replied to the motion. The motion has not yet been scheduled to be heard. In July 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012 Smile with the Central District Court in Israel. The plaintiff alleges that 012 Smile's internet advertisements regarding certain tariffs did not include complete information as to possible additional tariffs charged of third parties. The amount of the personal claim is set by the plaintiff at NIS 397 (approximately $108). As the plaintiff has not yet determined the size of the group, the estimated amount of the entire claim is not yet known. 012 Smile has not yet replied to the motion. The motion has not yet been scheduled to be heard. 012 Smile Communications Ltd. In April 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed with various District Courts in Israel against several international telephony companies including 012, with respect to prepaid calling card services. The plaintiffs allege that: (i) the defendants unlawfully charged consumers in excess of the tariffs published by them, (ii) the prepaid calling cards provide an average of 50% of the units of time indicated to the purchasers of the cards, (iii) the defendants deducted from the prepaid calling cards the time spent when a user unsuccessfully attempts to make a call utilizing the card, (iv) the defendants calculated and collected payment not by units of round minutes indicated, (v) the defendants provided misleading information about the number of "units" on the card, and (vi) the defendants formed a cartel that arranged and raised the prices of calling cards. In the event the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed against 012 is NIS 226.4 million (approximately $61.77 million). The Company cannot currently estimate the range of possible loss. 012 Smile Telecom Ltd., as successor to 012, filed its summation on June 13, 2010, the plaintiffs' respondent summation was filed on July 22, 2010. On November 3, 2010, the court granted the plaintiff's request and certified the suit as a class action against all of the defendants. The legal question at issue in the class action is whether the plaintiffs were misled by the representations made by the defendants. In addition, the matters of damages, causal relation, liability and amount of damage will also be litigated. The court has ordered the parties to formulate a public announcement in the matter of the class action proceeding that shall be approved by the court. In addition, the court has ordered the parties to inform the court within 30 days as to the way in which they wish to continue and conduct the proceeding, and if such notice is not be submitted to the court, the proceeding will be scheduled for an evidentiary hearing. In November 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel against 012. The action alleges that 012 unlawfully raised the monthly tariffs for its Internet services. The total amount of the claim is NIS 81.5 million (approximately $22.2 million). The Company cannot currently estimate the range of possible loss. 012 replied to the motion in May 2009. A pre-trial hearing was held in January 2010. In November 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012 with the Central District Court in Israel. Together with the filing of the motion, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restrictive order to prevent 012 from deleting or changing data relating to the plaintiff's claims in the motion. The motion alleges that 012 has violated the Israeli "anti spam" law by sending advertising materials to its customers. The amount of the plaintiff's personal claim is set at NIS 10,000 (approximately $2,700). The estimated amount of the entire claim is yet to be known, and therefore, the Company cannot currently estimate the range of possible loss. On November 29, 2009, the court granted a temporary order preventing 012 from deleting or changing data relating to specific messages which the plaintiff claims he sent to 012. 012 Smile Telecom, as successor to 012, filed its response to the motion in February 2010. A court hearing was held in March 2010 and the court ordered the plaintiff to notify the court by May 17, 2010 whether he intends to litigate the claim and the request or to submit a motion to withdraw. On May 13, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the suit, subject to payment of the plaintiff's legal fees by 012 Smile Telecom. On June 13, 2010, the court declined the motion, and on September 14, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend his suit and request. 012 Smile Telecom filed its response to the motion on November 4, 2010. In November 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012 with the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel. The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully charges its customers who do not pay their debts on time with collection expenses. The estimated amount of the entire claim is NIS 21.75 million (approximately $5.93 million). The Company cannot currently estimate the range of possible loss. 012 Smile Telecom, as successor to 012, replied to the motion on June 14, 2010. The plaintiff filed his response on July 11, 2010. A pre-trial hearing is scheduled for November 30, 2010. In December 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012 with the Central District Court in Israel. The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully intervenes with web traffic, especially as it relates to Peer to Peer websites. The estimated amount of the entire claim is NIS 40 million (approximately $10.91 million). The Company cannot currently estimate the range of possible loss. 012 Smile Telecom, as successor to 012, has replied to the motion. In January 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012, 012's subsidiary, 012 Telecom Ltd., and others with the Central District Court in Israel. The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully charges its customers when placing calls to 012's support center. The total amount of the action against 012 and its subsidiary is approximately NIS 48.6 million (approximately $13.26 million). The Company cannot currently estimate the range of possible loss. 012 Smile Telecom, as successor to 012, replied to the motion on October 17, 2010. ART TECHNOLOGY: Appeal on Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- In December 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed against ART Technology Group, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc., two former officers of Primus and the underwriters of Primus' 1999 initial public offering. The complaints are similar and allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, primarily based on the allegation that the underwriters received undisclosed compensation in connection with Primus' initial public offering. The litigation has been coordinated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with claims against approximately 300 other companies that had initial public offerings during the same general time period. The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation under which insurance will pay the full amount of the settlement share allocated to Primus, and Primus bears no financial liability. In October 2009, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. Certain objectors are appealing the final order. No further updates were reported in ART Technology Group, Inc.'s November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. BALDWIN MUTUAL: Alabama High Court Reverses Certification Order --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the certification of a class action against Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company, Inc., following the company's appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court's order. Dean Edwards sued Baldwin Mutual on July 12, 2007, asserting a breach-of-contract claim. Specifically, Mr. Edwards stated that, in August 2005, his house was damaged by Hurricane Katrina and that Baldwin Mutual was his homeowner's insurer at the time. Mr. Edwards alleged that, under his homeowner's policy with Baldwin Mutual, he was entitled to recover the "actual cash value" of his loss. Mr. Edwards maintained that, as part of "actual cash value" he says was due under his policy as a result of his loss, he was entitled to receive an additional 20% of the costs of material and labor, a sum, Mr. Edwards alleged, typically charged by contractors for overhead and profit. Mr. Edwards alleged that Baldwin Mutual breached its policy by failing to include that 20% for contractor overhead and profit in calculating the "actual cash value" of his loss. Mr. Edwards also sought to represent a proposed class of plaintiffs under Rule 32(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P. On March 1, 2010, the trial court entered an order certifying the class. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Alabama concluded that the trial court exceeded its discretion in certifying the class as redefined in Mr. Edwards's November 6, 2009, brief. The high court also remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. A copy of the court's opinion dated on November 24, 2010, is available at http://is.gd/i3hxBfrom Leagle.com. BAYER PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Birth Control Pills --------------------------------------------------------- Megan Sarrazin, writing for The Gateway, reports two brands of birth control pills prescribed to roughly two million women in 2009 are being named in a national class action lawsuit alleging serious health side effects to some of its users. Yasmin and Yaz, both products of Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, are targets of the class action lawsuit by Siskinds, a law firm based in London, Ont. According to Matthew Baer, the lead council representing Siskinds, they receive several calls a week from people noting injuries resulting from the use of Yasmin or Yaz. "It just started getting overwhelming, the number of people calling with respect to this particular brand and so we started looking into it and seeing that there were a lot of issues in the U.S. as well." "We started researching it more and it appears that there's science showing that the risks of serious injury with Yasmin and Yaz is worse than comparable contraceptives. But the warning that's given is that the risk is the same," said Mr. Baer. Many of the reported side effects include strokes, pulmonary embolisms -- a blood clot in the lung -- and various heart problems. What Mr. Baer calls the most overwhelming, however, is that many young women have to get their gall bladders removed. There have been about 4,000 individual cases against Yasmin and Yaz in the U.S. In addition, most provinces in Canada are filing class action lawsuits against the drugs, according to Baer. Siskinds has been receiving calls for about a year, in which time they have logged about 300 significant complaints of side effects. "We have to be very careful what we choose, and if we choose a case to do, it's because we're very confident that it will be successful at the end of the day," said Mr. Baer. Due to the overwhelming amount of calls the law firm has received in regards to Yasmin and Yaz, Baer believes the case will be a success. He is hoping for an outcome with two major focuses. "We want to try to get compensation for people who are injured from using the drug and two, and just as importantly, we want there to be a proper warning," said Mr. Baer. "If it is true, as we allege, that there's a significantly greater increased risk of health problems with people using this drug as compared to other ones, we want there to be a proper warning in place so that people can make informed decisions about what they're putting in their bodies," he added. Although they are nine or 10 months away from seeing any significant progress with the case, Mr. Baer is confident that there will be a settlement. BOTTOMLINE TECH: Appeal on Suit Settlement Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from an order approving a settlement of a consolidated securities class action against Bottomline Technologies, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2010, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On Aug. 10, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Paul Cyrek v. Bottomline Technologies, Inc.; Daniel M. McGurl; Robert A. Eberle; FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Inc.; CIBC World Markets; and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. A consolidated amended class action complaint, In re Bottomline Technologies Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, was filed on April 20, 2002. On Nov. 13, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against Optio Software in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Kevin Dewey v. Optio Software, Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.; Fleetboston Robertson Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.; Dain Rauscher Inc.; U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.; C. Wayne Cape; and F. Barron Hughes. A consolidated amended class action complaint, In re Optio Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, was filed on April 22, 2002. Optio Software was acquired by the company in April 2008. The amended complaints filed in both the actions against the company and Optio assert claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The amended complaints assert, among other things, that the descriptions in the company's and Optio's prospectuses for their initial public offerings were materially false and misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters of the offerings, and in not describing certain alleged arrangements among underwriters and initial purchasers of the common stock from the underwriters. The amended complaints seek damages (or, in the alternative, tender of the plaintiffs' and the class's common stock and rescission of their purchases of the common stock purchased in the initial public offering), costs, attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other expenses. In July 2002, the company and Optio joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss, which challenged the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims. The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual defendants named in similar lawsuits. On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the motion todismiss as to Bottomline and denying in part the motion to dismiss as to Optio. In addition, in October 2002, Daniel M. McGurl, Robert A. Eberle, C. Wayne Cape and F. Barron Hughes were dismissed from the case without prejudice. Both Bottomline and Optio authorized the negotiation of a settlement of the pending claims, and the parties negotiated a settlement, which was subject to approval by the court. On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the District Court's certification of the class of plaintiffs who are pursuing the claims that would be settled in the settlement against the underwriter defendants. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit on Jan. 5, 2007 in response to the Second Circuit's decision. On April 6, 2007, plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing of the Second Circuit's decision was denied. On June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order terminating the settlement. On Sept. 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in certain designated "focus cases" in the District Court. That motion was withdrawn. Neither Bottomline nor Optio's cases are part of the designated focus case group. On Nov. 13, 2007, the issuer defendants in the designated focus cases filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints that were filed in those cases. On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order denying, in large part, the motions to dismiss the amended complaints in these focus cases. On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a new proposed settlement between plaintiffs, the underwriter defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers for the issuer defendants. On June 10, 2009, the Court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, and scheduling a settlement fairness hearing for Sept. 10, 2009. On August 25, 2009, the plaintiffs in the initial public offering securities class action litigation against Bottomline and its subsidiary Optio filed a motion for final approval of the proposed settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes. A settlement fairness hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2009. On Oct. 5, 2009, the Court issued an opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes. An order and final judgment was entered on November 25, 2009. Various notices of appeal of the Court's order have been filed. On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the court withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two remaining objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Calif. Class Action Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Brinker International, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 29, 2010. Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed a lawsuit against Brinker International in California Superior Court alleging violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and was certified as a class action in July 2006. On July 22, 2008, the California Court of Appeal decertified the class action on all claims with prejudice. On October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted a writ to review the decision of the Court of Appeal. CAPELLA EDUCATION: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- Capella Education Company has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the Police Pension Fund of Peoria in Minnesota, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On November 5, 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit, captioned Police Pension Fund of Peoria, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Capella Education Company, J. Kevin Gilligan and Lois M. Martin, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint names Capella Education Company and certain senior executives as defendants, and alleges the Company and the named defendants made false or misleading public statements about the Company's business and prospects during the time period from February 16, 2010 through August 13, 2010 in violation of federal securities laws, and that the statements artificially inflated the trading price of the Company's common stock to the detriment of shareholders who purchased shares during that time. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the purported class. CHARLES SCHWAB: Settlement Amendment Gets Preliminary Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Jarzemsky and Brett Philbin, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, report Charles Schwab Corp. disclosed Tuesday that a court has preliminarily approved an amendment to its settlement of a consolidated class-action lawsuit related to investors' losses in an ultra-short bond fund. At issue was whether investors outside California had the ability to bring separate claims against the company under California's consumer laws, or if the settlement agreement released those claims. The plaintiffs agreed to release those claims in exchange for the ability to opt out of the current agreement and pursue those claims if they wish, an attorney for the plaintiffs said earlier this month. The amendment "releases defendants from any further claims those class members could assert and provides those class members an opportunity to opt-out of the settlements and pursue separate claims," Schwab disclosed in a regulatory filing Tuesday. The court's approval is subject to a final fairness hearing on Feb. 11. The YieldPlus fund, once one of the best performing funds in its category, became one of the symbols of the financial collapse in 2008, as it posted steep losses because of its holdings of mortgage-backed securities, which accounted for about half the portfolio. Investors' losses from the fund represent a minor black eye for Schwab, which fared better than many financial-services companies during the crisis, though it has been hammered by low interest rates. After the company pulled out of its original settlement, analysts were concerned that uncertainty over potential litigation could hurt Schwab's stock. CONSOL GAS: Faces Class Action Over Gas Drilling Royalties ---------------------------------------------------------- Paula Reed Ward, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports a family from Mount Pleasant Borough, Westmoreland County, is suing Consol Gas Co., charging that the royalties they are being paid for the gas drilling rights on their property are being improperly calculated and that the company is taking improper deductions for post-production costs. The suit, filed this month in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, seeks class-action status, and according to the attorneys involved, could ultimately include as many as 1,000 plaintiffs. A similar complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh against Energy Corporation of America, and it could include as many as 100 class members if it is certified. It is unclear how much money could be involved in both cases, said Mark Nevins, a spokesman for the law firm Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan and Conboy, which represents the plaintiffs in both cases. According to the lawsuit filed in Common Pleas Court, Earl Hall Jr. entered an oil and gas lease in March 1998, and his parents, Earl D. Hall Sr. and Betty Jane Hall, entered such a lease in October 2002. Consol acquired the leases in 2010. The lawsuit, which includes a claim for breach of contract, charges that Consol violated the lease agreement by taking impermissible volumetric deductions when calculating the natural gas royalties. The Halls said they didn't discover the improper calculations until September. The Halls also are seeking a court-ordered accounting of the royalty payments. "The named plaintiffs suspect that the royalty payments on all leases subject to this class action were incorrect from the first royalty payment to the present." Ten plaintiffs are named in the federal lawsuit against Energy Corporation of America, based in Colorado. The first of the plaintiffs entered lease agreements beginning in 2002. The most recent lease was signed in 2009. The federal complaint includes the same claims for breach of contract and accounting. Neither Consol nor Energy Corporation of America returned calls seeking comment Monday evening. EL PASO CORP: Appeal on ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from an order dismissing a class action lawsuit against El Paso Corporation remains pending, according to the company's November 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Tomlinson, et al.v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso Corporation Pension Plan was filed in U.S. District Court for Denver, Colorado. The lawsuit alleges various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a result of the Company's change from a defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance pension plan. The trial court has dismissed all of the claims. The dismissal of the case has been appealed. ERNST & YOUNG: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage ---------------------------------------------------- Brian Mansberger, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ernst & Young LLP, Case No. 652093/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York Cty. November 23, 2010), accuses the international auditing firm of failing to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week due to defendants systematic and class-wide misclassification of certain of its employees as exempt from New York's overtime laws. Mr. Mansberger worked as an uncertified public accountant in defendants' New York office. Mr. Mansberger explains that under applicable New York employment laws, individuals who are not Certified Public Accountants and who are employed as Staff Associates or Senior Staff Associates are entitled to overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Gonnelli, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI L.L.P. 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 - and - Kendall S. Zylstra, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 E-mail: kzysltra@faruqilaw.com jwells@faruqilaw.com - and - Gary Lynch, Esq. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LTD 36 N. Jefferson Street P.O. Box 7635 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (724) 656-1555 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com FOUR ALTRIA: Four Class Suits Over Light Cigarettes Rejected ------------------------------------------------------------ Altria Group (NYSE:MO) had a court victory against claimants seeking class-action status concerning light cigarettes offered by the company, as four lawsuits filed against the cigarette maker were rejected concerning being allowed to proceed in class-action status. Canaccord said, "A district court of Maine refused to grant class- action status to four suits leveled against Altria's Philip Morris unit by smokers seeking refunds for light cigarettes. Smokers have alleged the tobacco company relied on deceptive advertisements in marketing its low-tar cigarettes; they claim that Philip Morris used descriptors to suggest the brands were less harmful than regular cigarettes, even though it knew users would be getting the same level of tar or nicotine from them. But the district court of Maine, which is coordinating multi-district litigation from several states on the matter, said that each state's class includes everyone who purchased light cigarettes in the relevant limitations periods, which necessarily includes people who knew light cigarettes weren't healthier than others." The court ruled that "Those class members were not injured by the defendants' misconduct and thus do not have standing. Furthermore, in view of the proliferation of information decrying the health risks of all cigarettes there is no telling how many potential class members are similarly situated." Altria isn't out of the legal waters yet though, as there are 15 more lawsuits waiting in the wings to be ruled on. Lawyers for Altria are optimistic this ruling will be persuasive concerning the remaining lawsuits and believed they'll be denied class status as well. Altria closed Monday at $24.43, gaining $0.07, or 0.29%. FUSHI COPPERWELD: Faces Class Action Over Fu Proposal ----------------------------------------------------- Fushi Copperweld, Inc., is facing a class action complaint in connection with a proposal from its chief executive and Abax Global Capital (Hong Kong) Limited to acquire the company's shares of common stock, according to its November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On November 4, 2010 a shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain officers and directors thereof in connection with the November 3, 2010 proposal made by Mr. Li Fu and Abax for Mr. Fu and Abax to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Common Stock of Fushi not currently owned by Mr. Fu and his affiliates in a going private transaction for $11.50 per share in cash, subject to certain conditions. In the complaint, the plaintiffs challenge the Fu Proposal and allege, among other things, that the consideration to be paid in such proposal is grossly inadequate. The complaint seeks, among other relief, to enjoin defendants from consummating the Fu Proposal and to direct defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the company's shareholders. The complaint was filed in Nevada state court. GALEOS LLC: Sued in California for False Advertising ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Galeos "aggressively" pushes its miso salad dressings as low-fat and low-calorie, on (nonparty) Jillian Michaels' TV show "The Biggest Loser," though the dressings are neither low fat nor low in calories. The class claims Galeos advertises its Miso Caesar Dressing as containing 14 calories, 1gram of fat and 56 milligrams of sodium per tablespoon, but an independent lab found it contains 120 calories, 11 grams of fat and 390 mg of sodium. The class seeks restitution, statutory and punitive damages for unfair competition, false advertising, consumer fraud, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. The only defendant in the complaint is Galeos LLC, based in Costa Mesa, Calif. A copy of the Complaint in Cooperman v. Galeos, LLC, Case No. 10- cv-01815 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/30/SaladDressing.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Flannery, Esq. John J. Carey, Esq. Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-725-7700 E-mail: mflannery@careydanis.com jcarey@careydanis.com casey@jefflowepc.com tyiatras@careydanis.com - and - David S. Paris, Esq. Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP 101 Eisenhower Parkway Telephone: 973-228-6667 E-mail: david@paslawfirm.com ross@paslawfirm.com GEEKNET: Appeal on IPO Lawsuit Settlement Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from an order approving a settlement of a consolidated lawsuit against Geeknet, Inc., is still pending with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In January 2001, the Company, two of its former officers, and Credit Suisse First Boston, the lead underwriter in the Company's initial public offering, were named as defendants in a shareholder lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, later consolidated and captioned In re VA Software Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01- CV-0242. The plaintiffs' class action suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from the time of the Company's initial public offering in December 1999 through December 2000. Among other things, the complaint alleged that the prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's initial public offering contained certain false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the practices of the Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions from customers related to such allocations. Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar allegations concerning the initial public offerings of approximately 300 other issuers. The various cases were coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92. In 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the action against the Company, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants in the coordinated proceeding filed motions to dismiss. In 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims against the Company. In 2006, an appellate court overturned the certification of classes in six focus cases, which included the Company's case, that were selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings. Plaintiffs filed amended master allegations and amended complaints and again moved for class certification in the six focus cases. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints and opposed class certification. In 2008, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaints. The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation. Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, the Company will bear no financial liability and the Company and other defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case. On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying a settlement class and granting final approval of the settlement. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals set an October 6, 2010, deadline for filing an appeal and only one objector filed an appeal by such date. GOOGLE INC: Sued for Illegally Stealing Data From Wi-Fi Networks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Knight, writing for Houston Press, reports according to a federal lawsuit, Google stole private information in Texas when it was collecting data for Street View. An East Texas attorney has filed a class action lawsuit against Google, claiming the company illegally stole data from Wi-Fi networks while collecting data for Google Maps Street View. Google got in trouble earlier this year for its Street View collection methods -- basically driving around cars equipped with special cameras -- and the company was the target of investigations in Europe and another lawsuit from plaintiffs in Oregon and Washington. The East Texas lawsuit, filed by attorney Eric Findlay on November 24 in federal court in Tyler, deals specifically with "data scrapping" from Texas homes and businesses, and the suit represents "All persons located in the State of Texas who owned and operated an open Wi-Fi network . . . anytime between April 2007 and May 2010." The lawsuit estimates the numbers in the class are "at least in the thousands." From the lawsuit: Google also intentionally included distinct and specifically designed software . . . to intercept and record the information that the Wi-Fi transmitters were transmitting as Google cars were driving past homes and businesses. That information was then stored by Google for purposes only known to Google at this time. The information intercepted and recorded included entire emails, email passwords and other private data belonging to the owners and occupants of the homes and businesses that Google cars passed. Google admitted to the problem back in May, after the "data protection authority" in Hamburg, Germany asked to audit Street View Data. On its Google blog, the company said: "But it's now clear that we have been mistakenly collecting samples of payload data from open Wi-Fi networks, even though we never used that data in any Google products . . . Maintaining people's trust is crucial to everything we do, and in this case we fell short." A little more than a month ago, Google announced it would stop scanning for Wi-Fi networks with its Street View cars. The lawsuit is seeking $100 a day for each "violation" or $10,000, whichever is greater, for each member of the class. HEALTHWAYS INC: Court Approves Settlement of Tennessee Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Healthways, Inc., obtained final court approval of an agreement to settle an amended complaint filed against the company in Tennessee, according to its November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Beginning on June 5, 2008, Healthways and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. On August 8, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the two related cases, appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and granted lead plaintiff leave to file a consolidated amended complaint. The amended complaint, filed on September 22, 2008, alleged that the Company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of Healthways. The amended complaint further alleged that certain of the individual defendants also violated Section 20A of the Act based on their stock sales. The plaintiff purports to bring these claims for unspecified monetary damages on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Healthways stock between July 5, 2007 and August 25, 2008. In support of these claims, the lead plaintiff alleged generally that, during the proposed class period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding (1) the purported loss or restructuring of certain contracts with customers, (2) the Company's participation in the Medicare Health Support pilot program for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and (3) the Company's guidance for fiscal year 2008. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 13, 2008. On March 9, 2009, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On April 27, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for $23.6 million. The District Court gave final approval to the settlement by an order entered on September 24, 2010. HEALTHWAYS INC: Preliminary Approval of Suit Settlement Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Healthways, Inc., is awaiting preliminary court approval of an agreement to settle a putative class action complaint filed against the company in Tennessee, according to its November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On July 31, 2008, a purported class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division against Healthways, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's 401(k) plan. The central allegation is that Company stock was an imprudent investment option for the 401(k) plan. An amended complaint was filed on September 29, 2008, naming as defendants the Company, the Board of Directors, certain officers, and members of the Investment Committee charged with administering the 401(k) plan. The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to remove the Company stock fund from the 401(k) plan when it allegedly became an imprudent investment, by failing to disclose adequately the risks and results of the MHS pilot program to 401(k) plan participants, and by failing to seek independent advice as to whether to continue to permit the plan to hold Company stock. It further alleged that the Company and its directors should have been more closely monitoring the Investment Committee and other plan fiduciaries. The amended complaint sought damages in an undisclosed amount and other equitable relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 29, 2008. On January 28, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of the duty to disclose with regard to any non-public information and information beyond the specific disclosure requirements of ERISA and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the remainder of the plaintiff's claims. A period of discovery ensued. On May 12, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. After the plaintiff failed, without explanation, to appear for his scheduled deposition, the Court issued an Order on July 10, 2009 warning the plaintiff that his failure to participate in the lawsuit could result in sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal. After the plaintiff's failure to participate continued, on July 23, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute the action. On August 6, 2009, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the named plaintiff but otherwise without prejudice, and the Court entered an Order to that effect on the same date. On February 1, 2010, a new named plaintiff filed another putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, alleging ERISA violations in the administration of the Company's 401(k) plan. The new complaint is identical to the original complaint, including the allegations and the requests for relief. Defendants' answer to this complaint was filed on March 22, 2010. A scheduling order was entered on April 1, 2010, and discovery commenced thereafter. On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On June 23, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter for $1.3 million, with such settlement being funded by the Company's fiduciary liability insurance carrier. The District Court must approve this settlement after notice to the class before it may be considered final. The class settlement has been reduced to writing and presented to the Court for preliminary approval. HOULIHAN SMITH: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wage ----------------------------------------------------- Hector De La Riva, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-50204 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 23, 2010), bring claims against the defendants for non-payment of overtime wages, failing to accurately record actual hours worked, in violation of the Illinois wage and hour laws, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Hector De La Riva, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, worked as a commission only, non-exempt employee for defendants. Houlihan Smith is a Nevada corporation that operates a specialized investment banking firm in the state of Illinois. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq. JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES 431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (312) 939-2100 ISTAR FINANCIAL: Discovery Process in New York Lawsuit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in a consolidated class action lawsuit against iSTAR Financial, Inc., is ongoing, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In April 2008, two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants and alleging violations of federal securities laws. Both suits were purportedly filed on behalf of the same putative class of investors who purchased Common Stock in the Company's December 13, 2007 public offering. The two complaints were consolidated in a single proceeding (the "Citiline Action") on April 30, 2008. On November 17, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and Citiline Holdings, Inc. were appointed Lead Plaintiffs to pursue the Citiline Action. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 2, 2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between December 6, 2007 and March 6, 2008. The Complaint named as defendants the Company, certain of its current and former executive officers, and certain investment banks who served as underwriters in the Company's Offering. The Complaint reasserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and added claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs allege the defendants made certain material misstatements and omissions relating to the Company's continuing operations, including the value of the Company's loan portfolio and certain debt securities held by the Company. The Complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees, and rescission of the public offering. No class has been certified. The Company and its current and former officers filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on April 27, 2009 and, on March 26, 2010, the Court issued its order granting, in part, the dismissal of certain Securities Act claims against certain of the Company's current and former officers, but denying the motion as to all claims asserted against the Company. Accordingly, the discovery process has commenced. J. CREW: Being Sold for Too Little, New York Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors of J. Crew Group are feathering their own nests by selling the company too cheaply, through an unfair process, to TPG Capital and Leonard Green & Partners, for $3 billion, or $43.50 a share, shareholders say in a class action in New York County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Church v. J. Crew Group, Inc, et al., Index. No. 652101/2010( N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/30/JCrew.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas G. Amon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON 250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316 New York, NY 10107 Telephone: (212) 810-2430 - and - Marc M. Umeda, Esq. S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq. Arshan Amiri, Esq. ROBBINS UMEDA LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP 3232 McKinney, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Adds Homestead Homeowners to Settlement List ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Wozniak, writing for The News-Press, reports a Chinese manufacturer has added a group of Homestead homeowners to a list of 300 eligible for a pilot program to have their defective drywall fixed. Meanwhile, Southwest Florida homeowners already on the pilot list eagerly await the start of work or worry whether accepting the settlement offer is the right thing to do. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Ltd. offered its fix-it program just before Thanksgiving in what became a double victory for 79 Homestead plaintiffs whose class-action lawsuit, according to their attorney, was the first certified in the Chinese drywall debacle. In addition, Banner Supply, another defendant, also agreed to an undisclosed settlement in the same class action, said attorney Victor Diaz. "For the homeowners to get to this point in less than two years is a significant accomplishment," Mr. Diaz said. The class action was filed Feb. 3, 2009. "I'm glad the homeowners will finally be able to see a true light at the end of the tunnel," he said. The Knauf portion of the settlement applies to 49 of the 79 plaintiffs who have Knauf drywall. They may elect to be part of the pilot program or continue to litigate along with their fellow plaintiffs who have defective drywall from other manufacturers. The Knauf pilot program was first announced Oct. 14 in a settlement negotiated by lawyers for plaintiffs in thousands of drywall lawsuits consolidated before Federal Judge Eldon Fallon in New Orleans. The Homestead addition is seen as an extension of that settlement, a Knauf attorney said. "KPT looks forward to working cooperatively with homeowners impacted by its drywall and continue settling on reasonable repairs," attorney Gregory Wallace said in an e-mail. The drywall, imported mostly between 2004 and 2008, emits foul- smelling sulfur compounds that corrode copper and other metal household items, from plumbing to TVs to jewelry. Residents of these homes complain of health symptoms from respiratory problems to nosebleeds. There are 56 Southwest Florida homeowners in the initial pilot program list of 300 -- 41 from Cape Coral, 11 from Fort Myers, two from Punta Gorda and one each from Lehigh Acres and Bokeelia. Some, like Frank and Kathy Jarvis, have already signed on the dotted line to have Knauf bring in its selected contractor, Moss Construction, to gut their home and rebuild it. Kathy Jarvis said Monday that the couple signed Oct. 15 and is waiting to hear from their attorney within the next couple of days on what the exact scope of the remediation work will be. "This is a blessing from the Lord for the amount of money this will cost -- they made it clear they will bring the house back to what it was," she said. "They will bring it back to the day it was purchased, and I was happy at that point." But others are not so sure that Knauf's fix-it protocol will be a complete remedy. They point out that the fix falls short of what is considered the gold standard for drywall remediation established by Fallon in his previous decisions. "I am just going to weigh my options," said William Lake of Cape Coral, who is also on the list. "Most of the people I talked to are not happy." But, "If I have to, I'll have to let them do it because I don't want to be completely out in the cold," Mr. Lake said. "I'm not stupid, either." LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Race Discrimination Suit in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint filed against Lufkin Industries, Inc., alleging race discrimination in employment is still pending, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On March 7, 1997, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by an employee and a former employee of the Company who alleged race discrimination in employment. Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998. In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for this case, which included all black employees employed by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the present. The case was administratively closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in December 2003, and after the close of plaintiffs' evidence, the court adjourned and did not complete the trial until October 2004. Although plaintiffs' class certification encompassed a wide variety of employment practices, plaintiffs presented only disparate impact claims relating to discrimination in initial assignments and promotions at trial. On January 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision finding that the Company discriminated against African-American employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the Company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%. On August 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the back pay award for the class of affected employees was $3.4 million (including interest to January 1, 2005) and provided a formula for attorney's fees that the Company estimates will result in a total not to exceed $2.5 million. In addition to back pay with interest, the District Court (i) enjoined and ordered the Company to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion practices and (ii) ordered the Company to pay court costs and expenses. The Company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on September 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 3, 2007, the Company appeared before the appellate court in New Orleans for oral argument in this case. The appellate court subsequently issued a decision on Friday, February 29, 2008 that reversed and vacated the plaintiffs' claim regarding the initial assignment of black employees into the Foundry Division. The court also denied plaintiffs' appeal for class certification of a class disparate treatment claim. Plaintiffs' claim on the issue of the Company's promotional practices was affirmed but the back pay award was vacated and remanded for recomputation in accordance with the opinion. The District Court's injunction was vacated and remanded with instructions to enter appropriate and specific injunctive relief. Finally, the issue of plaintiffs' attorney's fees was remanded to the District Court for further consideration in accordance with prevailing authority. On December 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court Judge Clark held a hearing in Beaumont, Texas during which he reviewed the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals class action decision and informed the parties that he intended to implement the decision in order to conclude this litigation. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Clark ordered the parties to submit positions regarding the issues of attorney's fees, a damage award and injunctive relief. Subsequently, the Company reviewed the plaintiffs' submissions which described the formula and underlying assumptions that supported their positions on attorney's fees and damages. After careful review of the plaintiffs' submission to the court the Company continued to have significant differences regarding legal issues that materially impacted the plaintiffs' requests. As a result of these different results, the court requested further evidence from the parties regarding their positions in order to render a final decision. The judge reviewed both parties' arguments regarding legal fees, and awarded the plaintiffs an interim fee, but at a reduced level from the plaintiffs' original request. The Company and the plaintiffs reconciled the majority of the differences and the damage calculations which also lowered the originally requested amounts of the plaintiffs on those matters. Due to the resolution of certain legal proceedings on damages during first half of 2009 and the District Court awarding the plaintiffs an interim award of attorney's fees and costs totaling $5.8 million, the Company recorded an additional provision of $5.0 million in the first half of 2009 above the $6.0 million recorded in fourth quarter of 2008. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's interim award of attorney's fees with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit subsequently dismissed these appeals on August 28, 2009 on the basis that an appealable final judgment in this case had not been issued. The court commented that this issue can be reviewed with an appeal of final judgment. On January 15, 2010, the District Court notified the Company that it had entered a final judgment related to the Company's ongoing class-action lawsuit. The Court ordered the Company to pay the plaintiffs $3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment interest and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest. The Company had previously estimated the total liability for damages and interest to be approximately $5.2 million. The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for legal fees and expenses from January 1, 2009 through the date of the final judgment. On January 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court for a supplemental award of $0.7 million for attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred between January 1, 2009 and January 15, 2010. The Company recorded provisions for these judgments in 2009. On January 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's final judgment. On January 21, 2010, The Company filed a notice of cross-appeal with the same court. In addition, the Company filed a motion with the District Court to stay the payment of damages referenced in the District Court's final judgment pending the outcome of the Fifth Circuit's decision on both parties' appeals. The District Court granted this motion to stay. On September 28, 2010, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for supplemental attorney's fees, costs and expenses in the amount of $0.7 million for the period of January 1, 2009 through January 15, 2010. In order to cover these cost, the Company recorded an addition provision of $1.0 million in September 2010 for anticipated costs through the end of 2010. MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Amended Complaint Still Pending in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- An amended consolidated complaint filed against Mcdermott International, Inc., in Texas is still pending, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On November 17, 2008, December 5, 2008, and January 20, 2009, certain alleged purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from February 27, 2008 through November 5, 2008 filed purported class action complaints against MII, Bruce Wilkinson (MII's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board), and Michael S. Taff (MII's former Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading information and/or concealing material adverse information relating to the operational and financial status of three ongoing construction contracts for the installation of pipelines off the coast of Qatar. Each complaint seeks relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for costs and expenses. The three cases were consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In May 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which, among other things, added Robert A. Deason (JRMSA's former President and Chief Executive Officer) as a defendant in the proceedings. In July 2009, MII and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. In February 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum and Recommendation on the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief under the securities laws and therefore recommended to the District Court that motion to dismiss be granted. On March 26, 2010, the Court issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in full and dismissing the case. However, the order granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint and, on April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court for leave to amend the complaint. The defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion in May 2010 and the District Court has not yet ruled on the matter. MEDIACOM: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Mediacom is selling itself too cheaply, for $600 million, in a management-led buyout led by CEO Rocco Commisso, in a federal class action. MEDIACOM COMMS: Awaits Final Judgment in "Ogg" Suit in Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- Mediacom Communications Corporation is awaiting a court's final judgment in a class action lawsuit filed against Mediacom LLC, one of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries, captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, pending in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, originally filed in April 2001, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. The lawsuit alleges that Mediacom LLC, in areas where there was no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from landowners to place the company's fiber interconnection cable notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from other third parties. While the parties continue to contest liability, there also remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages. Based on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim compensatory damages of approximately $14.5 million. Legal fees, prejudgment interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million. Before trial, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory of $42.0 million in compensatory damages. Notwithstanding the verdict in the trial, the company remains unable to reasonably determine the amount of its final liability in this lawsuit. Prior to trial the company's experts estimated its liability to be within the range of approximately $0.1 million to $2.3 million. The estimate did not include any estimate of damages for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive damages. On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives. On March 18, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary and Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and punitive damages of $35,000. The Court did not enter a final judgment on the verdict and therefore the amount of the verdict cannot be judicially collected. MEDIACOM COMMS: Still Faces Cable Subscribers' Lawsuit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mediacom Communications Corporation continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit filed by its customers in New York, according to the Company's November 8, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. A purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Jim Knight v. Mediacom Communications Corp., in which the Company was named as the defendant, was filed on March 4, 2010. The complaint asserts that the potential class is comprised of all persons who purchased premium cable services from the Company and rented a cable box distributed by the Company. The plaintiff alleges that the company improperly "tied" the rental of cable boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiff also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The Company was served with the complaint on April 16, 2010, and it has responded. MEDIACOM COMMS: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Suits in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mediacom Communications Corporation is defending itself from a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by certain shareholders in Delaware, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Commencing in June 2010, three shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against Mediacom Communications Corporation and its individual directors, all in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware under the captions, Colleen Witmer v. Mediacom Communications Corporation et al., J. Malcolm Gray v. Mediacom Communications Corporation et al. and Haverhill Retirement System v. Mediacom Communications Corporation et al. The lawsuits, which were consolidated for all purposes in the Delaware Chancery Court, derived from the previously disclosed offer by Rocco B. Commisso to acquire all of the outstanding shares of MCC common stock not already owned by Mr. Commisso, and allege breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting the breaches, and seek injunctive relief or in the alternative, compensatory damages. NATIONAL PENN: Class Action Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- National Penn Bancshares, Inc., continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit, which accused the company of being part of a fraudulent telemarketing scheme, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010. On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes filed a putative class action lawsuit pursuant to the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against multiple defendants, including National Penn Bank (Case No. 2:10-cv-00345). The complaint essentially alleges that the defendants were part of a fraudulent telemarketing scheme whereby funds were unlawfully withdrawn from Plaintiff's bank account by telemarketers, deposited into the telemarketers' accounts with the bank defendants (including National Penn Bank) via payment processors, and then transferred to offshore accounts. Plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued Over Variable Loan Rate Policies ---------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Buchmeier at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance took advantage of thousands of whole-life policyholders by failing to adjust interest rates on loans in accordance with the economic climate, as it promised to do. The class claims Northwestern adjusted interest rates upward during the stagflation of the late 1970s, but never reduced them, as promised, when interest rates sank. Lead plaintiffs Gad and Jean Smith say they bought whole life policies that "originally contained policy language providing for a maximum loan interest rates [sic] of 5% of 6% (the '5%/6% limit policies')." But the economic morass of the late 1970s, known as stagflation, brought "an unprecedented rise in market interest rates," and Northwestern Mutual "became alarmed," according to the complaint. The insurer feared that "owners of the 5%/6% limit policies would engage in arbitrage, withdrawing the cash values by borrowing at the 5% or 6% rate guaranteed them in the policies, and reinvesting the cash values in other safe investments which paid higher rates." So around 1977, the class claims, Northwestern Mutual amended its policies to charge variable rates "that Northwestern promised would vary with long-term economic conditions but would never exceed 8% (the 'variable loan rate amendment')." "In return for accepting the company's amendment, owners of the 5%/6% policies were offered the right to participate in a higher tier dividend class together with other members of the mutual insurance company whose policies allowed Northwestern to charge a maximum interest rate of 8% on policy loans. Smith accepted the offer and each of Smith's six policies was modified to permit a variable loan rate with a maximum of 8% (the 'variable loan rate policies'). Despite the sustained drop in interest rates since 1990 and the current historically low interest rate environment, Northwestern has continued to assess an unchanging 8% interest rate against the loans made on Smith's variable loan rate policies in violation of it express contractual and fiduciary duty," according to the complaint. The class seeks an injunction and damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. A copy of the Complaint in Smith, et ux. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case No. _____ (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/30/NWMut.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Scoptur, Esq. AIKEN & SCOPTUR, S.C. 2600 North Mayfair Road, Suite 1030 Milwaukee, WI 53226 Telephone: (414) 225-0260 - and - Gerry H. Goldsholle, Esq. Robert K. Scott, Esq. ADVOCATE LAW GROUP, P.C. 2330 Marinship Way, Suite 121 Sausalito, CA 94965 Telephone: (415) 339-6510 - and - Robert M. Foote, Esq. Ted Meyers, Esq. Craig S. Mielke, Esq. Peter J. Flowers, Esq. FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE, & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 797-3321 - and - Douglas A. Kreis, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLLC 803 North Palafox Street Pensacola, FL 32503 Telephone: (850) 916-7450 - and - Tom DeVoto, Esq. THE DEVOTO LAW FIRM 7646 Watson Road St. Louis, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 961-0330 NOVARTIS AG: Judge Gives Final OK to Sex-Bias Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports the federal judge presiding over a sex-bias class action against Novartis AG's U.S. unit gave final approval to a $152.5 million settlement the drugmaker reached in July. "The road to this settlement was long, arduous, risky and expensive," U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan wrote in an opinion Tuesday. "The settlement is, by all measures, excellent." The suit was filed in 2004 by Amy Velez and four other women who claimed they faced discrimination in pay and promotion and for pregnancy. The case was certified as a class action on behalf of more than 5,600 women who worked in sales jobs at the Novartis since July 15, 2002. Under the deal, Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis will pay $60 million in back pay to the class and as much as $40 million in compensatory damages. Lawyers for the class were awarded $40.1 million in fees and expenses. Witnesses and class representatives get $9.8 million. Novartis also agreed to implement measures to protect female workers' rights. The settlement came after a jury found Novartis liable for discrimination May 17 and awarded $3.4 million in damages to 12 of the women. Two days later, the same jury awarded $250 million in punitive damages. The case is Velez v. Novartis Corp., 04-cv-09194, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Genesee County Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action filed against Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., remains pending in Michigan, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In County of Genesee, Michigan (purported class action), the plaintiff Counties moved for partial summary disposition with respect to liability under Count I of their complaint on Sept. 13, 2010. No further details were disclosed in the company's regulatory filing. ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Court Stays Consumer Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court stayed proceedings of a consolidated class action filed against Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., and its affiliates, pending a decision on motions to dismiss, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. The company is a party to various cases brought by consumers and municipalities and other U.S. governmental entities involving hotel occupancy taxes and its merchant hotel business model. Some of the cases are purported class actions, and most of the cases were brought simultaneously against other online travel companies, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline. The cases allege, among other things, that the company violated the jurisdictions' hotel occupancy tax ordinances. While not identical in their allegations, the cases generally assert similar claims, including violations of local or state occupancy tax ordinances, violations of consumer protection ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in some cases, civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including: declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs, attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an order certifying the action as a class action. An adverse ruling in one or more of these cases could require the company to pay tax retroactively and prospectively and possibly pay penalties, interest and fines. The proliferation of additional cases could result in substantial additional defense costs. On October 1, 2010, a putative consumer class action complaint -- Peluso v. Orbitz.com, Orbitz, LLC (d/b/a Orbitz.com), Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide Development, LLC, Orbitz Worldwide International, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, et al. -- was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants overbilled customers for hotel occupancy taxes and sales taxes imposed by the City and State of New York and asserts claims for violation of New York's deceptive business practices statute, declaratory and injunctive relief, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On October 7, 2010, the case was consolidated with similar cases that were previously filed against other OTCs. The court has stayed this case pending the outcome of motions to dismiss that were filed by the other OTCs. PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Settles Class Action Over Jail Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------ Christian Hill, writing for The News Tribune, reports nearly 15 years of federal court-ordered monitoring at the Pierce County (Wash.) Jail appear to be coming to an end. Pierce County and inmates have reached a settlement that would conclude a class-action lawsuit stemming from jail overcrowding, substandard medical care and other conditions that the plaintiffs alleged violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The agreement came one week after a Tacoma magistrate judge identified areas of lingering concern, such as inmate suicides, which the county has pledged to address. Under the agreement, the lawsuit that was filed in January 1995 will end no later than March 1, 2011, if the court-appointed monitor certifies compliance to a U.S. District Court judge by Feb. 22. The monitor, Judith Cox of Clifton Park, N.Y., did not return a phone message seeking comment Monday. Pierce County Deputy Prosecutor Dan Hamilton said Monday that he expects the case will close before the February deadline. He estimated that the lawsuit has cost the county more than $1 million, including legal fees and monitoring expenses. Doug Honig, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which provided the inmates with legal aid, said the suit has brought significant improvements in jail conditions such as a near doubling of the nursing staff, added mental health staff and re-establishment of outside physician review of deaths and other issues. "Jails are not supposed to be pleasant places and they're not, but there have to be minimum standards of how people are treated," he said Monday. "At the time, the jail was not meeting those minimum standards." Mr. Hamilton maintained that the jail has been in compliance with court-ordered standards for years, and he was pleased that the case was nearing an end "because the fact is that this litigation has taken up the resources and time of medical staff that would otherwise be used to take care of prisoners." In 1996, the sides entered into a contract that would resolve the claims if various conditions were met. Pierce County agreed to reduce overcrowding, allow inmates to practice their religion freely, provide them legal materials, and investigate complaints of staff misconduct, among other terms. The contract also assigned a court monitor to report on the progress of the county in ensuring that inmates were receiving appropriate health care. In 2009, the court granted the county's request to rule that all provisions of the contract had been satisfied except those dealing with medical care. The county and the inmates later narrowed the lawsuit further, identifying 10 areas for continued monitoring. The agreement also called for the county to hire two more nurses for the jail. In September, Pierce County moved to terminate the contract, saying it was providing care in the 10 areas at a level above what's required by the U.S. Constitution. But there were areas of disagreement between the county and the court-appointed monitor. In October, U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold of Tacoma recommended seven areas be dismissed, agreeing that the county was providing sufficient care. However, he ruled that three areas still needed improvement: privacy at intake, care of chronic diseases and monitoring for alcohol withdrawal. Judge Arnold highlighted the deficiencies by relating the case of one inmate whose body could not rid itself of ammonia without proper medication. The inmate was transferred from the jail to at least two hospitals no fewer than 11 times between November 2009 and early 2010. Jail staff missed giving him his medication multiple times, even after staff at two hospitals informed jail employees of the problem. "This is not simply negligence, it is symptomatic of a dysfunction in a health care system that does not properly track and assure critical medication compliance," he wrote. Judge Arnold also noted another inmate who committed suicide at the jail in August, hours after he was arrested for suspicion of drunken driving and after intake staff had identified a history of depression. Judge Arnold noted that there were 16 suicides by hanging at the jail between 1998 and 2010, the leading cause of death at the facility. Judge Arnold also had concerns about the jail's alcohol withdrawal monitoring, noting a 2008 incident in which jail staff observed a prisoner vomiting. But there was nothing in the record to show the information was passed on to medical staff. The prisoner was dead two hours later, Judge Arnold wrote. Under the Oct. 22 settlement agreement, the medication nurse will have a face-to-face meeting with any inmate who requires medication to avoid getting critically ill. Another term requires that medical staff perform three assessments a day for a prisoner on alcohol-withdrawal watch. "We have an agreement that will further improve medical conditions at the jail," the ACLU's Honig said Monday, "and we'll be watching to make sure that's fully implemented." PROSHARES: Zamansky Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in ETF Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Zamansky & Associates has been appointed co-lead counsel in the consolidated class action proceedings concerning exchange-traded funds ("ETFs") issued by ProShares. In September the law firm filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint containing allegations regarding 31 different ETFs. The law firm is still seeking named plaintiffs for a number of those funds, all of which failed in the same manner as the SRS fund that was the subject of our original Complaint. Please contact us at (212) 742-1414 or by emailing jake@zamansky.com if you purchased any of the following funds anytime between August 6, 2006 through June 23, 2009: AGQ Ultra Silver GLL Ultra Short Gold MZZ Ultra Short MidCap 400 QID Ultra Short QQQ REW Ultra Short Technology SIJ Ultra Short Industrials SJF Ultra Short Russell 1000 Value SKK Ultra Short Russell 2000 Growth SZK Ultra Short Consumer Goods ZSL Ultra Short Silver IF YOU HAVE ALREADY RETAINED COUNSEL, PLEASE DISREGARD THIS INFORMATION. Contacts: Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. ZAMANSKY & ASSOCIATES 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 E-mail: jake@Zamansky.com QUIBIDS LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- On November 30, 2010, a class action lawsuit has been filed against QuiBids, LLC, by the law firm of Beckham & Mandel in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma alleging deceptive and unfair trade practices and fraud in its operation of QuiBids.com. QuiBids.com is an interactive online Web site which allegedly allows its users to buy consumer products at greatly reduced prices by participating in online auctions. QuiBids.com claims that users of their Web site will pay 80%-95% less than retail prices for thousands of consumer products, including high-end items such as HDTVs, laptops, and even automobiles, by bidding on their merchandise via online auctions. However, according to the suit, virtually none of the consumers who participate in these "auctions" will win the right to purchase such high-end item products at those greatly reduced prices. The suit alleges that the failure to win auctions is costly to QuiBids customers. Each auction draws hundreds or thousands of bids purchased at $0.60 per bid. The losing bidders do not get back the cost of the losing bids. Thus, the overwhelming majority of customers will lose money using the QuiBids Web site, according to the suit. The suit alleges that QuiBids.com does not tell its customers that they have virtually no chance to come out ahead financially. Thus, while QuiBids.com passes itself off as a legitimate auction house, its business operation is more akin to a casino or a lottery. As a result of QuiBids.com's alleged fraudulent and deceptive business practices, the suit alleges QuiBids has taken in millions of dollars. In one such auction, alleged in the suit, QuiBids' profits exceeded $12,000 from the bidding on a $1,500 HDTV. The ultimate winner paid $228.59, but 22,859 bids were purchased by all bidders in the total amount of $13,715.40. All of those bidders except one walked away with nothing, never knowing they were playing more of a lottery than bidding in an auction. While QuiBids.com claims that it offers consumers great savings, "In reality, they are just taking people's money and giving them nothing in return," Roger Mandel, attorney for the Class, said. "If they want to operate their business like a lottery, then they need to tell people the truth about their chances of winning -- which are slim to none," said Mandel. A copy of the Complaint is available at http://is.gd/i23C0 ROME BANCORP: Defends Merger-Related Shareholder Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Rome Bancorp, Inc., according to its November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, is defending itself from lawsuits filed by stockholders resulting from the Company's merger with Berkshire Hills Bancorp. Following the public announcement of the execution of the merger agreement between Rome Bancorp and Berkshire Hills Bancorp, on October 18, 2010, Stephen Bushansky filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of the Bronx, and, on October 27, 2010, James and Liliana DiCastro filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware, each against Rome Bancorp, Inc., Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc., and the directors of Rome Bancorp, Inc. Each lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all of Rome Bancorp's public stockholders and alleges that the directors of Rome Bancorp breached their fiduciary duties to Rome Bancorp's stockholders by failing to take steps necessary to obtain a fair and adequate price for Rome Bancorp's common stock. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and seeks unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages on behalf of Rome Bancorp's stockholders. Each lawsuit is in a preliminary stage. SANFORD BROWN: Judge Certifies Class Action ------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports a class action against Sanford Brown Colleges and its corporate parent has been certified by Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack. Judge Stack signed the order Monday, just days before his scheduled retirement Dec. 3. Judge Stack heard oral arguments for and against certification on Nov. 15. The class will include just over 2,000 students enrolled at Sanford Brown's Collinsville campus who attended its medical assistants program. The lead plaintiffs in the suit, including Jenna and Jessica Lilley, claim that they and the class were misled about the value and career paths a degree from the school would achieve. Their attorney, John Carey, told Stack during arguments that the school had basically given his clients and class members "a worthless piece of paper." Sanford Brown has argued that the plaintiffs' claims are too individual to meet the requirements for a class action. "This is putting lipstick on a pig," defense counsel James Monafo said Nov. 15. The school and its corporate parent, Career Education Corp., also contend that the plaintiffs admitted to never reading provided statistics from the school and that they understood what admissions representatives told them about the program and its translation into a job. Sanford Brown had attempted to have the suit dismissed. Judge Stack threw out certain claims including certain fraud allegations. In his Nov. 29 class certification order, Stack finds that class members meet the numerosity requirement for a class action to go forward. The judge also finds that common questions of law and fact apply to the case on claims under the Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act. Judge Stack found that the issue of causation, one that the defendants argued was lacking in the case, does not apply under the business and vocational schools statute. Judge Stack had expressed his doubts about the causation issue during the class certification hearing. He also questioned whether two classes would be needed in the case. In the end, he certified a single class. The St. Louis firm of Carey & Danis LLC and the Klamann Law Firm of Kansas City are designated as class counsel in the order. The Klamann firm has played a role in several similar individual suits against Sanford Brown in Missouri. James Monafo, John Richmond and others represent Sanford Brown and Career Education Corp. The case is Madison case number 08-L-113. SHOPPERS DRUG: Faces Class Action From Two Associate-Owners ----------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports Shoppers Drug Mart Corp. says it is being sued for $1 billion by two of its licensed associate-owners, who are seeking class-action status. Class-action status would allow the plaintiffs to sue on behalf of all Shoppers associate-owners and share any compensation among them. Canada's largest pharmacy company says has been accused of breaching contractual agreements with its associate-owners. Shoppers provided few details except to say the suit alleges it collected or kept money or benefits beyond what was contractually permitted. The company says it believes the claims are without merit and it will defend itself vigorously. At the beginning of October, Shoppers had 1,181 stores owned and operated by associates. STAMPS.COM: Appeal on Securities Suit Settlement Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from an order approving the settlement of securities class action lawsuits filed against Stamps.com, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In 2001, the company was named, together with certain of its current and former board members and officers, as a defendant in several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act in connection with the company's initial public offering and a secondary offering of the company's common stock. Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation, including interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). In 2003, the company reached a proposed settlement that would not have required it to make any payments, which was ultimately terminated in 2007 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that the class could not be certified as defined. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and proposed an alternative class definition in related litigation. In 2009, the company approved a new proposed settlement which has been documented and filed with the court for its review and approval. As with the company's previously proposed settlement, this proposed settlement would not require the Company to make any payments. The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved by the court in June 2009. In October 2009, the court approved a settlement of this action, which does not require the company to make any payments. The court approval has been appealed. TEMPLE-INLAND INC: Faces Five Class Action Suits in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Temple-Inland, Inc., is facing five class action complaints filed in Illinois, according to the company's November 8, 2010, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2010. On September 9, 2010, Temple-Inland was one of eight containerboard producers named as defendants in a class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in August 2005, conspired to artificially increase prices of containerboard and corrugated containers. The alleged class is all persons in the United States who purchased corrugated sheets or corrugated containers directly from any defendant during the period August 2005 to the present. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class. Four additional plaintiffs have filed substantially the same complaints in the Northern District of Illinois. TOYOTA MOTOR: Acceleration Class Suits Survive Dismissal Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Cronin Fisk and Bill Callahan, writing for Bloomberg News, report Toyota Motor Corp. lost its bid to dismiss class- action lawsuits filed by car owners claiming economic losses tied to sudden acceleration. The car owners' lawyers provided sufficient evidence to allow their cases to go forward, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna in Santa Ana, California, said Tuesday, finalizing a tentative ruling issued Nov. 19. Toyota sought dismissal of the suits, contending the plaintiffs failed to plead specific losses or identify an actual defect. "It is true that plaintiffs do not generally allege the precise dollar value of their losses, but that level of specificity is not required at the pleadings state," Judge Selna said. "The court is convinced that a safety consideration as fundamental as whether a car is able to stop when the brakes are applied is material to consumers." The economic-loss lawsuits, combined for pretrial filings and rulings before Judge Selna, claim Toyota drove down the value of vehicles by failing to fix or disclose defects that triggered unintended acceleration. Federal suits claiming death or injury caused by such episodes are also combined in the Santa Ana court. Toyota, based in Toyota City, Japan, has recalled more than 8 million vehicles for repairs related to sudden, unintended acceleration. In September 2009, the automaker announced a recall of 3.8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles, saying floor mats might jam accelerator pedals. The company later recalled vehicles over the pedals themselves. Celeste Migliore, a spokeswoman for Toyota, didn't immediately respond to e-mail and phone messages seeking comment. The cases are combined as In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 8:10-ml-02151, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Santa Ana). TWENTIETH CENTURY: Settles Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message Ad ---------------------------------------------------------------- A team of attorneys from Edelson McGuire, LLC has achieved a settlement in a class action lawsuit relating to the alleged transmission of an unsolicited text message advertisement to the cell phones of consumers nationwide. The lawsuit brought against the producer and distributor of the motion picture Robots alleged that the text-message advertisement, in which the Robots distributor retained a third party marketing firm to promote the DVD release of the motion picture Robots, violated a provision of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The settlement, which was preliminarily approved November 17, 2010 by a Federal Court in Chicago, establishes a $16 million cash settlement fund out of which payments of up to $200 will be made to each cell phone user who received the Robots text message. The defendants Twentieth Century Fox and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC d/b/a FoxStore.com have denied the advertisement violated any laws or was in any way improper or harmful to consumers. Edelson McGuire in Chicago -- a firm that regularly handles consumer technology class actions -- were appointed by the Court to serve as attorneys for the class. This settlement is an excellent result for the class members who received the Robots message and for cell phone users throughout the nation," commented Ryan D. Andrews, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs. Edelson McGuire's Jay Edelson, Myles McGuire, and Michael J.McMorrow are also representing the class. Those who received the Robots message are encouraged to visit http://www.LozanoTextSettlement.com/to learn more details about the settlement and how to apply for a settlement payment. Class members may also call the Settlement Administrator at 1-877-695- 7495 or Edelson McGuire, LLC at 1-866-354-3015 for more information. UNITED STATES: Sued Over Gay Service Members' Separation Pay Cut ---------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com reports it's like pouring salt on the wound, say critics of the government policy of cutting separation pay in half for men and women discharged from the US military under the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) rule. The American Civil Liberties Union has just filed a national class action claiming the practice violates the rights of the former service members under the equal protection and right to substantive due process components of the Fifth Amendment. "A little over a year ago, a former member of the US Air Force, who had been honorably discharged under DADT, came to us and said his separation pay had been cut in half and wanted to know if we could help," says ACLU attorney Joshua Block. Since the administration is on record opposing discrimination against gays in the military, Mr. Block and the ACLU thought this would be easy to reconcile, but after a year of letters and telephone calls, nothing has changed for former US Air Force Staff-Sergeant, Richard Collins. "We finally sent a demand letter saying we hope you fix this policy, but if you don't, we have no choice but to bring this litigation," says Mr. Block. During his nine-year career, according to the documents filed by the ACLU, Mr. Collins had been an exemplary member of the armed forces. He was awarded a good conduct medal, served in Kosovo and was promoted quickly through the ranks. Mr. Collins was honorably discharged in 2006 after two civilians who worked at his base reported seeing him kissing a boyfriend in a car stopped at red light. Mr. Collins was off duty, dressed in civilian clothes and more than 10 miles from his base in Arizona. And Mr. Collins is not alone in being short-changed on separation pay. The amount of money owed to military personnel kicked out for being homosexual is "not insignificant," says Mr. Block. "And the policy is offensive." "It is rubbing salt in the wound," says Mr. Block. "These people are kicked out of the military through no fault of their own and then on top of that their separation pay is cut in half." The argument against gays in the military has historically been that it affects troop morale says Mr. Block. "So even if you believe that DADT was necessary for unit cohesion, it doesn't provide a reason to cut someone's separation pay in half," he adds. The class covers anyone who was honorably discharged over the last six years -- with at least six years of service, and had their pay cut in half. Although how many ex-military personnel might qualify as members of the class is unknown, it's estimated there may be as many as 500 potential class members. The suit asks that former service members be paid the money owed to them with interest, both pre- and post-judgment, and that the attorney fees also be paid. The claims court cannot provide injunctive relief to plaintiffs says Mr. Block. "That's beyond the scope of claims court; however, hopefully a judgment in our favor would stop the practice once and for all." Joshua Block is a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in New York City working on the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender and AIDS Project. WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling on Job Bias Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- David G. Savage, writing for Tribune's Washington Bureau, reports the fate of the largest job bias lawsuit in U.S. history -- a claim that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shortchanged women in pay and promotions for many years -- hinges on whether the Supreme Court will let the class-action case go to trial. The court is likely to announce soon whether it will hear the retail giant's appeal asserting that a single suit cannot speak for more than 1.5 million employees. Business lawyers and civil rights advocates are closely following the case for its implications for class-action litigation. "This may sound like just a technical, procedural issue, but because of the economics of it, class-action certification is often the most important issue to be decided," said Washington lawyer Roy Englert Jr. If the court permits the case to proceed as a class action, it will put enormous pressure on the retailer to settle, he said. The plaintiffs have not specified the damages they would seek, but given the size of the class, it could be in billions of dollars. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several large corporations have joined with Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, in urging the court to hear the appeal and to restrict the use of class-action claims. They argue it is unfair to permit plaintiffs' lawyers to lump together many thousands of employees from stores across the country and to rely on statistics to prove illegal discrimination. But civil rights advocates say the only effective way to challenge systemic discrimination in a large company is to bring a claim on behalf of all of the affected employees. "If the Supreme Court takes this case, it will signal this business-friendly court is hostile to class actions against corporate defendants," said Stanford Law School professor Deborah Hensler, an expert on civil litigation. This month, the court heard another case that could decide the fate of class-action suits involving consumers and their purchases. Lawyers in San Diego filed a class-action suit against ATT Mobility alleging that its ads promising free cell phones were fraudulent because the buyers had to pay $30 for sales tax. In its defense, ATT said the fine print that came with its phones said all claims must be handled individually through arbitration, not through a class-action suit. If the high court agrees with ATT and decides that the Federal Arbitration Act trumps the buyer's right to sue, consumer advocates fear it could mean the end of class-action claims involving products and services. The Wal-Mart case began in 2001, when lawyers in San Francisco sued on behalf of six current and former employees, led by Betty Dukes, a Wal-Mart store greeter in Pittsburg, Calif. They alleged the Arkansas-based retailer had hiring and promotion policies that allowed male managers to award higher pay and better jobs to men. They sought lost wages and benefits for more than 1.5 million women who had worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores since 1998. "We found Wal-Mart to be an outlier" based on salary data for men and women employees, said Joseph Sellers, a Washington lawyer for the plaintiffs. "Wal-Mart was so preoccupied in growing its business that it left in place personnel policies that were a throwback to practices from 20 or 30 years ago." A federal judge in California said the suit could be tried as a class action; the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in April by a 6-5 vote. In its appeal, Wal-Mart's lawyers said it was unfair and unconstitutional to force the company to defend itself against the broad allegation that discriminatory decisions were made in 3,400 stores. "The company's policies forbid discrimination and support diversity," said Los Angeles lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr., who filed Wal-Mart's appeal. YELLOWSTONE, MT: Judge Allows Class Action Over Wage Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Hagengruber, writing for The Billings Gazette, reports a lawsuit filed in federal court over wage policies at the Yellowstone County (Mont.) Sheriff's Office is now a class-action lawsuit. Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull ordered that the lawsuit be expanded to include all eligible deputies in the department if they choose to join. Yellowstone County didn't object to the order, and county officials are optimistic that the lawsuit will be settled quickly in mediation. Deputy Jamie Swecker filed the lawsuit in September claiming that deputies were forced for years to report for an unpaid briefing 15 minutes before their regular shifts began. Sheriff Jay Bell changed that policy at about the time that the lawsuit was filed. Judge Cebull ordered that the county compile a list of all deputies who qualify for the lawsuit. The county will give that list to Mr. Swecker's attorneys, who will then contact all of the deputies on the list. Deputies will have until Feb. 8 to either join the lawsuit or opt out. Deputy County Attorney Kevin Gillen said he thinks the process will move more quickly because most of the deputies are still working at the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Gillen said both sides are discussing possible mediators who could resolve the lawsuit outside of court. "Everybody wants to get this resolved," Mr. Gillen said. "It's just a wage dispute, but it's something that needs to be addressed." Judge Cebull also amended the lawsuit to include the names of 19 more deputies who have already joined the lawsuit. Judge Cebull appointed Mr. Swecker as representative for all the deputies who join the lawsuit and named his attorneys as the lead attorneys. Mr. Gillen said the county didn't object to the class-action designation because it wants all affected deputies to be dealt with equally. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Unit Posts $467.3M Liability at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, recorded an asbestos liability of US$467.3 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 9, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. GST LLC's asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$157.1 million as of Sept. 30, 2010. GST LLC recorded asbestos-related expenses of US$1.1 million during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$13.7 million during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. GST LLC recorded asbestos-related expenses of US$24.7 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$41.8 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial products that include sealing products, self- lubricating, non-rolling bearing products and heavy-duty, medium- speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Posts $175.5MM Sept. 30 Insurance Coverage ----------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc., at Sept. 30, 2010, had US$175.5 million insurance coverage that the Company believes is available to cover current and future asbestos claims against Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and certain expense payments. GST has collected insurance payments totaling $16.9 million since its June 5, 2010 bankruptcy petition date. In addition, at the Petition Date, the Company had classified US$4.2 million of otherwise available insurance as insolvent. Of the US$175.5 million of collectible insurance coverage and trust assets, the Company considers US$172 million (98%) to be of high quality because the insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better. The Company considers US$3.4 million -- 2% -- to be of moderate quality because the insurance policies are written with various London market carriers. Of the US$175.5 million, about US$139.4 million is allocated to claims that have been paid by GST and submitted to insurance companies for reimbursement and the remainder is allocated to pending and estimated future claims, subject to potential competing claims of other covered subsidiaries and their assignees. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial products that include sealing products, self- lubricating, non-rolling bearing products and heavy-duty, medium- speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Posts $41.6MM Asbestos Charge at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc., in the first nine months of 2009, recorded a pre-tax charge of US$41.6 million to reflect cash outlays of US$22 million for fees and expenses and a US$19.6 million non-cash charge. Prior to mid-2004, the Company maintained that its subsidiaries' liability for unasserted claims was not reasonably estimable. The Company estimated and recorded liabilities only for pending claims in advanced stages of processing, for which it believed it had a basis for making a reasonable estimate. The Company disclosed the significance of the total potential liability for unasserted claims in considerable detail. During 2004, the Company authorized counsel to retain Bates White, a recognized expert, to assist in estimating its subsidiaries' liability for pending and future asbestos claims. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company has updated its estimate of the subsidiary liability regularly. For the year to date prior to the June 5, 2010 Petition Date, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of US$23.3 million in connection with the update of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's asbestos liability. The charge reflects US$13.8 million of fees and expenses paid during the period and a US$9.5 million non-cash charge. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and markets proprietary engineered industrial products that include sealing products, self- lubricating, non-rolling bearing products and heavy-duty, medium- speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $577.5MM Sept. 30 Gross Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group Ltd.'s gross reserves for asbestos- and environmental-related exposures were US$577.5 million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$652.3 million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. The Company recorded gross reserves of US$614.1 million for A&E matters during the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$704.5 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2010) The Company's net reserves for A&E-related exposures were US$554.6 million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$622.8 million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. At Sept. 30, 2010, the gross reserves for A&E losses were comprised of US$131.8 million representing case reserves reported by ceding companies, US$131.8 million representing additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance claims, US$41.2 million representing case reserves established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley, and US$272.7 million representing IBNR (incurred by not reported) reserves. With respect to asbestos only, at Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had gross asbestos loss reserves of US$551.4 million, or 95.5%, of total A&E reserves, of which US$445.8 million was for assumed business and US$105.6 million was for direct business. The Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.7 years at Sept. 30, 2010. Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group, Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides reinsurance and insurance in the United States, Bermuda and international markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Has 15,594 Abex Claims at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries plc, at Sept. 30, 2010, recorded 15,594 pending asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo- Abex Corporation. At June 30, 2010, the Company recorded 15,281 pending asbestos- related claims that were part of its obligation to Pneumo. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010) In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued businesses (including the Abex Friction product line obtained from Pneumo- Abex Corporation in 1994) were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998 (1998 Agreement). In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies, including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line and any potential liability that Cooper may have to Pneumo under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo. On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in December 2007. As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company and Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that was subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal-Mogul's indemnification obligations to the Company. On Sept. 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling denying the Company's participation in the proposed Federal-Mogul 524(g) trust resulting in implementation of the previously approved Plan B Settlement. As part of its obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex Friction product line (Abex Claims), the Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant insurance for such claims. Based on information provided by representatives of Federal-Mogul and recent claims experience, from Aug. 28, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2010, a total of 148,960 Abex Claims were filed, of which 133,366 claims have been resolved. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, about 1,220 claims were filed and 8,455 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,031 before insurance. A total of US$182.8 million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2010. Due to the exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers, existing insurance coverage currently provides about 30% recovery of the total defense and indemnity payments for Abex Claims, although, in certain periods, insurance recoveries can be higher due to new settlements with insurers. Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment makes circuit protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Estimates $759.8MM Liability at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries plc, as of Sept. 30, 2010, estimates that the liability for pending and future indemnity and defense costs for the next 45 years will be US$759.8 million, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 8, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of June 30, 2010, the Company estimated that the liability for pending and future asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs for the next 45 years will be US$769.8 million. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010) The amount included for unpaid indemnity and defense costs is not significant at Sept. 30, 2010. The estimated liability is before any tax benefit and is not discounted as the timing of the actual payments is not reasonably predictable. Pneumo-Abex Corporation discontinued using asbestos in the Abex Friction product line in the 1970s and epidemiological studies that are publicly available indicate the incidence of asbestos- related disease is in decline and should continue to decline steadily. Although it said it believes that its estimated liability for pending and future indemnity and defense costs represents the best estimate of its future obligation, the Company utilized scenarios that it believed were reasonably possible that indicate a broader range of potential estimates from US$505 to US$877 million (undiscounted). Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment makes circuit protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records $164.8MM Receivable at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries plc, as of Sept. 30, 2010, recorded an asbestos receivable for recoveries of costs from insurers amounting to US$164.8 million, of which US$57.5 million relate to costs previously paid or insurance settlements. As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, has access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$670 million. Insurance recoveries reflected as receivables in the balance sheet include recoveries where insurance-in-place agreements, settlements or policy recoveries are probable. The Company's arrangements with the insurance carriers may defer certain amounts of insurance and settlement proceeds that Cooper is entitled to receive beyond 12 months. About 92% of the US$164.8 million receivable from insurance companies at Sept. 30, 2010 is due from domestic insurers whose AM Best rating is Excellent (A-) or better. Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment makes circuit protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Insurance Action v. McDermott Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos insurance action styled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., filed against McDermott International, Inc. and subsidiary J. Ray McDermott, Inc., is still pending. On or about Aug. 23, 2004, the declaratory judgment action was filed by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company Limited (London Insurers), in the 23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish, La., against the Company, JRMI and two insurer defendants, Travelers and INA. The suit seeks a declaration that the London Insurers have no obligation to indemnify the Company and JRMI for certain bodily injury claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various state courts, and an environmental claim involving a former subsidiary. Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a declaration of non-coverage in about 20 underlying matters. This proceeding was stayed by the court on Jan. 3, 2005. Headquartered in Houston, McDermott International, Inc. is an engineering, procurement, construction and installation company focused on designing and executing complex offshore oil and gas projects worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Antoine Action v. McDermott Units Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain of McDermott International, Inc.'s subsidiaries are party to an asbestos-related action styled Antoine, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al., filed in the 164th Judicial District Court for Harris County, Tex. In a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott, Inc., et al., filed Dec. 16, 2005 in the 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish, La., about 88 plaintiffs sued about 215 defendants, including J. Ray McDermott, Inc. and Delta Hudson Engineering Corporation, another affiliate of the Company, generally alleging injuries for exposure to asbestos, and unspecified chemicals, metals and noise while the plaintiffs were allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen. On Jan. 10, 2007, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, without prejudice to their right to refile their claims. On Jan. 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Boudreaux, et al v. McDermott, Inc., et al., originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 21 plaintiffs originally named in the Antoine matter filed suit against JRMI, McDermott, Inc. and about 30 other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging exposure to welding fumes, solvents, dyes, industrial paints and noise. Boudreaux was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on May 2, 2007. The District Court entered an order in September 2007 staying the matter until further order of the court due to the bankruptcy filing of one of the co-defendants. Additionally, on Jan. 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Antoine, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al., filed in the 164th Judicial District Court for Harris County, Tex., 43 plaintiffs originally named in the Antoine matter filed suit against JRMI, MI and about 65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime products defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging personal injuries for exposure to asbestos and noise. On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order staying all activity and deadlines in this matter other than service of process and answer/appearance dates until further order of the court. The plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay on Feb. 20, 2009, which is pending before the District Court. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount in both cases and attorneys' fees in the new Antoine case. Headquartered in Houston, McDermott International, Inc. is an engineering, procurement, construction and installation company focused on designing and executing complex offshore oil and gas projects worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enterprise GP Has $64.2MM AROs at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.'s asset retirement obligations were US$64.2 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$54.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company records asset retirement obligations related to legal requirements to perform retirement activities as specified in contractual arrangements and/or governmental regulations. In general, the AROs primarily result from (i) right-of-way agreements associated with the Company's pipeline operations, (ii) leases of plant sites and (iii) regulatory requirements triggered by the abandonment or retirement of certain underground storage assets and offshore facilities. In addition, the AROs may result from the renovation or demolition of certain assets containing hazardous substances such as asbestos. Headquartered in Houston, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. owns Enterprise Products GP, LLC, the general partner and 2% owner of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. Enterprise Products Partners is a leading player in the North American natural gas, natural gas liquids and crude oil markets, with a range of processing, transportation, and storage services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duncan Energy Posts $7.5MM AROs at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Duncan Energy Partners L.P.'s asset retirement obligation liability balance was US$7.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$10.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company records asset retirement obligations related to legal requirements to perform retirement activities as specified in contractual arrangements and/or governmental regulations. In general, the Company's AROs primarily result from (i) right-of- way agreements associated with the Company's pipeline operations, (ii) leases of plant sites and (iii) regulatory requirements triggered by the abandonment or retirement of certain facilities. In addition, the Company's AROs may result from the renovation or demolition of certain assets containing hazardous substances such as asbestos. Headquartered in Houston, Duncan Energy Partners L.P. finds, stores, and transports natural gas and other petrochemicals. Its operations include Mont Belvieu Caverns (33 salt-dome storage "tanks" with a 100-million-barrel capacity), the 1,000-mile-long Acadian Gas pipeline in Louisiana, propylene pipelines between Texas and Louisiana, and a 297-mile-long intrastate natural gas liquids (NGLs) pipeline. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water Units Still Face Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to be named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's annual quarterly report filed on Nov. 24, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Headquartered in Atlanta, Mueller Water Products, Inc. operates in three business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil. Mueller Co. manufactures valves for water and gas systems, including butterfly, iron-gate, tapping, check, plug and ball valves, as well as dry-barrel and wet-barrel fire hydrants and a full range of metering products for the water infrastructure industry. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Records $1.3MM Sept. 30 Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- The asbestos-related asset retirement obligations on Digital Realty Trust, Inc.'s condensed consolidated balance sheets was about US$1.3 million as of both Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations as required by current accounting guidance. The amount of asset retirement obligations relates primarily to estimated asbestos removal costs at the end of the economic life of properties that were built before 1984. Headquartered in San Francisco, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. owns, acquires, develops, redevelops and manages technology-related real estate. As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's portfolio consisted of 95 properties, excluding two properties held as investments in unconsolidated joint ventures, of which 81 are located throughout North America and 14 are located in Europe. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $163.5MM Reserve at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation's gross asbestos and environmental claim and loss adjustment expense reserves were US$163.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$172.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's net A&E claim and loss adjustment expense reserves were US$131.1 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$136.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in Chicago, Old Republic International Corporation, through more than 125 subsidiaries covering the U.S. and Canada, is an insurance holding company operating in three primary areas: Old Republic General Insurance, Mortgage Guaranty unit, and Title Insurance group. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, NATCO Still Facing Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation or its former subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership, is named as a defendant in asbestos- related lawsuits. The Company or NATCO is named in about 251 lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury, primarily pleural abnormality or asbestosis, from exposure to asbestos on the Company's vessels. The vast majority of these lawsuits have been filed in the Northern District of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of Michigan. All of the cases filed against the Company prior to 1996 were administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since that time have similarly been administratively transferred to the inactive docket. Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to reinstate the cases at a future date without being barred by the statute of limitations. Since October 2009, the presiding judge has reactivated about 500 cases in an effort to clear out the administrative docket. Six of the cases reactivated to date name the Company as a defendant. Of these six cases, one of the plaintiffs has elected not to pursue his claims. Discovery on the remaining five cases was stayed by the presiding judge. In addition, by order entered March 2, 2010, the judge dismissed 7,405 lawsuits pending in the administrative docket, including 12 that named the Company as a defendant. It is anticipated that the presiding judge will continue to activate and dismiss more cases during the remainder of 2010 and through 2011 both per his discretion and per agreement of counsel. Headquartered in Oak Brook, Ill., Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation provides dredging services in the United States. In addition, the Company is the only U.S. dredging service provider with significant international operations, which represented 13% of its dredging revenues for the first nine months of 2010, compared with the Company's three year average of 30%. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Facing Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies has been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos during work at such formerly owned facilities. Those facilities formerly owned by the Company's predecessors have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. CERC anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Headquartered in Houston, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. Its subsidiaries own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and provide various ancillary services. The Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3,500 Cases Ongoing v. Tyco Int'l. at Sept. 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- There were about 3,500 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against Tyco International Ltd. and its subsidiaries as of Sept. 24, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous other companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial since 2005, the Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one case returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million, which included both compensatory and punitive damages. The Company recently settled the matter while its appeal was pending for significantly less than the amount awarded by the jury. Each lawsuit typically includes several claims, and the Company has determined that there were about 4,700 claims outstanding as of Sept. 24, 2010, which amount reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of active claims made against it or its affiliates, and includes adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants or are duplicative of other actions. Headquartered in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, Tyco International Ltd. is a diversified, global company that provides products and services to customers in various countries throughout the world. The Company provides security products and services, fire protection and detection products and services, valves and controls and other industrial products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Has $2.9MM Asbestos Liabilities at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2010, has recorded a liability of US$2.9 million related to potential future asbestos abatement activities at its Properties, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 9, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of June 30, 2010, the Company recorded a liability of US$2.8 million related to potential future asbestos abatement activities at its Properties. Headquartered in Chattanooga, Tenn., CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self-managed, self-administered, fully integrated real estate investment trust that is engaged in the ownership, development, acquisition, leasing, management and operation of regional shopping malls, open-air centers, community centers and office properties. The Company's shopping centers are located in 27 states. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Unit Posts $2.3Mil ARO Liability --------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Star Central Corp. says that, at Sept. 30, 2010, the amount of the regulatory asset was US$2.3 million and the related asbestos-related asset retirement obligation liability on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet was US$2.9 million. Company unit Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. has recorded an ARO for the remediation of asbestos existing on its system. The asbestos existing on Central's system is primarily in building materials and pipe coatings used prior to the Clean Air Act of 1973 that established the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) that regulates the use of asbestos. At Dec. 31, 2009, the amount of the regulatory asset was US$2.4 million and the related ARO liability on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet was US$2.8 million. Headquartered in Owensboro, Ky., Southern Star Central Corp. was incorporated in Delaware in September 2002 and operates as a holding company for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations and development opportunities. Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is the Company's only operating subsidiary and the sole source of its operating revenues. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Pending Against Regal Beloit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Regal Beloit Corporation continues to be party to litigation that arises in the normal course of its business operations, including product warranty and liability claims, contract disputes and environmental, asbestos, employment and other litigation matters. The Company's products are used in industrial, commercial and residential applications that subject the Company to claims that the use of its products is alleged to have resulted in injury or other damage. Headquartered in Beloit, Wis., Regal Beloit Corporation manufactures commercial, industrial, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) electric motors, electric generators and controls, and mechanical motion control products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- IntriCon Corporation is a defendant along with a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970-1973, have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense under those policies. The Company has requested that the carriers substantiate this situation. The Company said it believes it has additional policies available for other years, which have been ignored by the carriers. Headquartered in Arden Hills, Minn., IntriCon Corporation is an international firm engaged in designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing body-worn devices. In addition to its operations in Minnesota, the Company has facilities in Maine, California, Singapore and Germany. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Ventures Increases Reserve by $2.10MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Under to the requirements of the Accounting Standards Certification, Kaiser Ventures LLC has increased, during the third quarter of 2010, its environmental reserve by US$2,104,000 to account for new conditional obligation estimates and increased the carrying amount of the associated structures at Eagle Mountain by a comparable amount. In 2005, the Company adopted FIN 47 (now superseded by ASC 410 Accounting for Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations) and recorded a US$1.2 million increase in its environmental remediation reserves to cover the conditional asset retirement obligations relating to possible future abatement for asbestos- containing products in the structures at Eagle Mountain and concurrently recorded, as a long-term asset, the same amount. This long-term asset was fully depreciated as of Dec. 31, 2009. Based upon new information, the Company now estimates that such conditional asset retirement obligations relating to possible future abatement for asbestos-containing products in the structures at Eagle Mountain total US$3,304,000. This estimate was based on information provided by third party contractors knowledgeable about the structures at Eagle Mountain. This increased cost basis will be depreciated over the remaining estimated time that such assets will be owned by the Company, which is currently estimated to be about five years beginning with the fourth quarter of 2010. Headquartered in Ontario, Calif., Kaiser Ventures LLC is the reorganized successor to Kaiser Steel Corporation, which was an integrated steel manufacturer, after KSC's bankruptcy. The Company has been developing assets remaining after the bankruptcy and has realized substantial value from certain of those assets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. VWR Funding --------------------------------------------------------------- VWR Funding, Inc. is involved in various legal and regulatory cases, claims, assessments and inquiries, which include being named from time to time as a defendant in cases as a result of its distribution of laboratory supplies, including litigation resulting from the alleged prior distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of its predecessors or acquired companies. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Radnor, Pa.-based VWR Funding, Inc. distributes laboratory supplies, including chemicals, glassware, equipment, instruments, protective clothing, production supplies and other assorted laboratory products, primarily in North America and Europe. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali, D/C Still Subject to Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and subsidiary D/C Distribution Corporation have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there have been only a few such cases that name the Company, there are a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against the Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with the Company, in August 2006, whereby the Company provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000. Such settlement amount was paid to the Company in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness. Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities, D/C filed a voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 07-12776) in July 2007. The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C with the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008. Prior to the deadline, the Company filed claims that aggregated about US$26,800,000, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to the Company. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of about 700 claimants. Headquartered in Chicago, Kaanapali Land, LLC's continuing operations are in two business segments: Agriculture and Property. The Agriculture segment grows seed corn and soybeans under contract and is engaged in farming and milling operations relating to the coffee orchards on behalf of the applicable land owners. The Property segment primarily develops land for sale and negotiates bulk sales of undeveloped land. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 76 Injury Actions Ongoing v. Belden at Oct. 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- Belden Inc., as of Oct. 27, 2010, is party to legal proceedings and administrative actions, including 76 asbestos personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants. As of July 26, 2010, the Company faced 86 asbestos-related personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3, 2010) Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in Illinois and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory, special, and punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a heat-resistant asbestos fiber. The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products that contained the fiber, but ceased production of such products more than 20 years ago. Through Oct. 27, 2010, the Company has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be dismissed, in more than 395 similar cases without any going to trial, and with a relatively small number of these involving any payment to the claimant. Headquartered in St. Louis, Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets cable, connectivity, and networking products in markets including industrial automation, enterprise, transportation, infrastructure, and consumer electronics. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Remains Party to Cryovac Deal Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation, since the beginning of 2000, has been served with a number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac transaction, the Company is responsible for alleged asbestos liabilities of W. R. Grace & Co. and its subsidiaries, some of which were also named as co-defendants in some of these actions. Among these lawsuits are several purported class actions and a number of personal injury lawsuits. Some plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an attic insulation product. Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing materials that are the subjects of these cases. None of these cases has reached resolution through judgment, settlement or otherwise. In view of Grace's Chapter 11 filing, the Company may receive additional claims asserting that the Company is liable for obligations that Grace had agreed to retain in the Cryovac transaction and for which the Company may be contingently liable. To date, the Company is not aware of any material claims having been asserted or threatened against it. Final determinations and accountings under the Cryovac transaction agreements with respect to matters pertaining to the transaction had not been completed at the time of Grace's Chapter 11 filing in 2001. The Company has filed claims in the bankruptcy proceeding that reflect the costs and liabilities that it has incurred or may incur that Grace and its affiliates agreed to retain or that are subject to indemnification by Grace and its affiliates under the Cryovac transaction agreements, other than payments to be made under the Settlement agreement. Grace has alleged that the Company is responsible for specified amounts under the Cryovac transaction agreements. Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that now serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. The Company has business operations in 51 countries and sells products under brands like Bubble Wrap brand cushioning, Jiffy protective mailers, Instapak foam-in-place systems and Cryovac packaging technology. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air (Canada) Facing Thundersky's Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation's Canadian subsidiary, Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, since 2004, is a defendant in an asbestos case styled Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI04-01-39818). The case is pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. are also named as defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding. In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional putative class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. have agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions. In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (Canadian Court), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada, Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly. In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all of the Canadian actions. The parties finalized a global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims against the Canadian government). That settlement, which has subsequently been amended (the "Canadian Settlement") will be entirely funded by Grace. The Canadian Court issued an Order on Dec. 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement. The Company does not have any positive obligations under the Canadian Settlement, but it is a beneficiary of the release of claims. The release in favor of the Grace parties (including the Company) will become operative upon the effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace's United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As filed, the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject to injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. By its terms, the Canadian Settlement will, unless amended, become null and void if a confirmation order in the Grace U.S. bankruptcy proceeding is not granted prior to Dec. 31, 2010. Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that now serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. The Company has business operations in 51 countries and sells products under brands like Bubble Wrap brand cushioning, Jiffy protective mailers, Instapak foam-in-place systems and Cryovac packaging technology. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 5 Hilco Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2010, there existed five plaintiffs in lawsuits relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, by Hilco, Inc. The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County) by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos. Subsequent to Sept. 30, 2010, one plantiff filed an action, which results in six remaining plantiffs in these lawsuits. The Company never sold any asbestos related products. Of the existing plaintiffs as of Sept. 30, 2010, three filed actions in 2010 and two filed actions in 2009. There are 207 other plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and 16 other plaintiffs that have settled as of Sept. 30, 2010 for a total of US$3,361,500. There has been no judgment against Hilco. Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Faces 1 Exposure Claim -------------------------------------------------------- Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, following dismissed and settled asbestos-related actions, there existed one plaintiff that names subsidiary Universal Supply Group, Inc. as of Sept. 30, 2010. Universal was named by 37 plaintiffs; of these, one filed an action in 2010, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in 2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one filed an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999. Thirty-three plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed and, of the total US$3,361,500 of settled actions, three plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$27,500. No money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement. Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers Sept. 30 A&E Liability at $2.44MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Penn Millers Holding Corporation's estimated liability for asbestos and environmental claims was US$2,439,000 at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$2,397,000 at Dec. 31, 2009. A substantial portion of the liability results from the Company's participation in assumed reinsurance pools. The Company's estimated liability for A&E claims was US$2,301,000 at June 30, 2010 and US$2,397,000 at Dec. 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010) Headquartered in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Penn Millers Holding Corporation provides property and casualty insurance products designed to meet the insurance needs of certain segments of the agricultural industry and the needs of middle market commercial businesses. The Company is licensed in 39 states, but it currently limits its sales of its insurance products to 33 states. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker, Ariz. to Get $56T Grant for Remediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arizona Department of Environmental Quality officials, on Nov. 29, 2010, announced that a US$56,000 grant has been awarded to the Town of Parker for the cleanup of small quantities of asbestos in three town buildings, which the town wants to bring in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, according to an ADEQ press release dated Nov. 29, 2010. Parker received a community development block grant for the barrier removal project, to make the buildings more accessible for the handicapped, but funds from that grant can not be used for asbestos cleanup. The work will be performed at the town hall/police station, the library and the community/senior center. ADEQ Director Benjamin H. Grumbles said, "We commend the Town of Parker for taking action to accommodate all of its residents and redeveloping in an environmentally sensitive manner. Our state response grant program is all about partnering with towns like Parker to reduce environmental hazards." Town officials have said the asbestos in the structures is stable and does not pose a health hazard. The buildings were constructed between the mid-1960s and 1983, when asbestos was used as a common material for insulation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Govt. to Boost Asbestos Payments to AU$311T ---------------------------------------------------------------- New South Wales Finance Minister Michael Daley, on Nov. 30, 2010, flagged an asbestos compensation increase from AU$245,700 to AU$311,050, which the government pays to families of workers who died due to asbestos exposure, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. Mr. Daley adds the increase would be staged over two years. He says, "Supporting the families of workers killed because of an asbestos or other dust disease is important for this government and we want to make sure their compensation is adequate." The legislation would be introduced soon and the final sitting week of parliament before the March 2011 state election. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mitchells & Butlers Fined for Safety Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd, a major pub operator in the United Kingdom, has been fined after three electricians and two plumbers were exposed to asbestos during refurbishment works at a Darlington, England, pub, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated Nov. 26, 2010. Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd was refurbishing the vacant White Horse pub on Harrowgate Hill in Darlington, when the construction workers were potentially exposed to deadly asbestos fibers. An HSE investigation found that the Company had commissioned a survey to check for the presence of asbestos in June 2007, but it was restricted to those areas where the proposed refurbishment works were to be carried out. The refurbishment plans were then changed before work started. Bishop Auckland Magistrates' Court heard how on Sept. 28, 2007, the electricians and plumbers started work in a kitchen area, which had not been included in the original survey. The ceiling tiles in the kitchen contained asbestos, which meant that when the workers drilled into them with power tools, in preparation for new electrics and plumbing, dust and debris covered their faces and clothing, potentially exposing them to asbestos fibers. Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd, of Fleet Street, Birmingham was fined a total of GBP14,001 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, and ordered to pay costs of GBP11,781.45. HSE Inspector Victoria Wise said, "Construction and maintenance workers are among those most at risk from asbestos-related diseases due to the nature of their work. Asbestos is still widely present in buildings constructed prior to 2000, so workers can often inadvertently disturb materials containing asbestos if the correct survey has not been carried out to check for its presence and appropriate control measures put in place. "Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd knew there was asbestos in the building and should have ensured that all the areas where work was to be done had been checked for asbestos and the necessary precautions taken. "Everyone who owns or operates commercial premises built prior to 2000 must ensure that a suitable and sufficient assessment for asbestos has been carried out prior to any construction work starting. "In addition construction and maintenance workers should have asbestos awareness training so that they can recognize that some materials may contain asbestos and know what action to take." Among the workers exposed was 38-year-old Jonathan Cook from Cleethorpes. He said, "Because the effects of asbestos take a long time to show up, the worry of whether the asbestos has caused lasting damage to my health will stay with me for years to come. "And it's not just me -- it's a huge worry for my partner also, as there is a chance that she might have been exposed to fibers that were brought home on my work clothes." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guy, Brock May Be Liable for $1MM in Legal Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Guy, Esq., and Thomas Brock, Esq., who were found to have committed fraud during asbestos litigation, may be on the hook for nearly US$1 million in legal fees incurred by Illinois Central Railroad, which filed a fraud suit against the two men in November 2006, Legal Newsline.com reports. Mr. Guy and Mr. Brock have already been ordered to return US$210,000 in settlements and give another US$210,000 in punitive damages to Illinois Central Railroad. Mr. Guy and Mr. Brock, who were found by a federal jury in March 2010 to have hidden two of their clients' previous involvements in an asbestos mass action, spent nearly US$800,000 on their own defense. U.S. District Judge David Bramlette ordered an accounting of attorneys' fees from both sides earlier in November 2010 after Illinois Central had moved to have its fees paid by Mr. Guy and Mr. Brock. Judge Bramlette says, according to state law, the most useful starting point is determining if the amount of hours worked by the attorneys and if the per-hour fees charged were reasonable. Illinois Central hired Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy of Jackson, Miss., to pursue the case. The firm spent 3,411 hours on the case of Willie Harried and 2,320 on the case of Warren Turner. They are the two men who sued Illinois Central in 2001. The answers on their questionnaires submitted to the Company did not disclose their previous involvements years earlier in the mass action. All totaled, the Forman firm spent 5,731 hours on the case and charged Illinois Central US$958,857, an average charge of US$167 per hour. By comparison, the defendants were charged US$713,549 by their attorneys at Corlew Munford & Smith in Jackson. They billed 2,532 hours for an average per-hour fee of US$282, about US$115 more per hour than Illinois Central's attorneys. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Action v. 82 Firms Filed Nov. 10 in W.Va. --------------------------------------------------------------- Last Nov. 10, 2010, Rick Reed and Ruth Reed, co-executors of the Estate of Willie Oliver Reed filed an asbestos lawsuit against 3M Company; Alloy Cast Steel Company; A.W. Chesterton Company et al in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Willie Oliver Reed was diagnosed with asbestosis and died on Nov. 12, 2009. The plaintiffs claim the 82 defendants are responsible for Willie Oliver Reed's lung disease and death. They seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represents the Reeds. Case No. 10-C- 2027 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $15,600 Fine on Unlicensed Projects --------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued two separate penalties totaling US$15,600 in connection with an unlicensed asbestos removal project at a rental residence in Independence in September 2010, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated Nov. 29, 2010. DEQ issued an US$8,400 penalty to Paul Kay Reiter, of 341 D St., Independence, Ore., for allowing an unlicensed contractor to perform an asbestos abatement project on the rental home he owns at 365 Marsh St. About 1,200 square feet of asbestos-containing cement asbestos board siding was removed and shattered at the residence on Sept. 23, 2010. Mr. Reiter allowed Independence contractor and resident Todd Lorenz Tolzmann, who does not have a license to perform such work, to conduct the asbestos removal. As owner of the home, Mr. Reiter was responsible for ensuring that all asbestos was properly handled and disposed of. DEQ also penalized Mr. Tolzmann US$7,200 for performing an asbestos abatement project without first obtaining the required license from DEQ. Mr. Tolzmann's removal of the siding did not comply with state asbestos regulations and likely caused the release of asbestos fibers into the atmosphere. Additionally, Mr. Tolzmann left the shattered asbestos-containing siding on the ground outside the home and unpackaged, causing the potential for further release of asbestos fibers into the atmosphere. DEQ also cited Mr. Reiter and Mr. Tolzmann for openly accumulating asbestos-containing waste material, but did not issue penalties for these violations. Mr. Reiter's deadline to appeal is Dec. 7, 2010. Mr. Tolzmann appealed his penalty on Nov. 29, 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tower Hamlets Councilor's Death Due to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Gloucestershire, England, heard that the death of John Marshall, a former Tower Hamlets councilor, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, this is Gloucestershire.com reports. Alan Crickmore, Gloucestershire coroner, heard that Mr. Marshall came into contact with asbestos on many occasions at a time when no one knew of the dangers. Mr. Marshall, of Up Hatherley, Cheltenham, England, died at the age of 83 in Cheltenham's Sue Ryder Care Centre in August 2009. His widow, Joan, said a scan in 2009 showed he had an asbestos-related lung cancer. Former workmate William Hicks confirmed he had worked with Mr. Marshall and that they had regularly worked with or removed asbestos without any protective masks or overalls. Clinical oncologist at Cheltenham General Hospital, Dr. Peter Jenkins, said when he first saw Mr. Marshall a CT scan had found a plaque-like mass in the left lung. He said, "Malignant mesothelioma was diagnosed and there were calcified plaques present in keeping with asbestos exposure." Pathologist Dr. Keith McCarthy found a large number of asbestos fibers in Mr. Marshall's lungs, but he did not see evidence of malignancy in the lung. He added, "I felt that the mesothelioma was not of a size which could account for his death." However, two expert witnesses called by the coroner disagreed with this finding. Dr. Simon Sirvana, a specialist in diseases caused by asbestos, based in Sheffield, said small blood clots in the lungs were related to, and indirectly caused by, the tumor. Professor Andrew Nicholson, of the Royal Brompton Hospital and Imperial College London, said the mesothelioma was difficult to diagnose but he saw 20 to 30 similar cases each year. Mr. Crickmore said features had been found before death in keeping with mesothelioma and Mr. Marshall had certainly been exposed to asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Facility on Duwamish Site Needs Cleanup --------------------------------------------------------------- The first and possibly most important stage in the demolition process of old Boeing Plant 2, which runs along Seattle's Duwamish Waterway, is the removal of asbestos-containing siding, Mesothelioma.com reports. The goal is to bring back the half-mile stretch of natural riverbank now that Boeing has moved out of town. Screening off scaffolding has to be erected to keep asbestos material out of the water. Protecting the Duwamish Waterway from asbestos contamination is important to protecting both the environment and local health. Boeing's senior environmental remediation manager Steven Tochko said that the project is combining demolition, waterway cleanup and habitat restoration in a single project. Parts of the plant are now 74 years old, and it has not been used for decades, so the building in a ruinous condition. Boeing's corporate historian Mike Lombardi said that museums are being allowed into the factory to take whatever they feel will help tell Boeing's story. There have been discussions with the Museum of Flight, the Museum of History and Industry, the Washington State History Museum in Tacoma, Wash., and others regarding the public exhibition of doors, columns, signs and other pieces of the plant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Lawyer Gets $9.25MM for Newport News Client ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Hatten, Esq., of Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein has recovered US$9.25 million on behalf of a former Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock machinist who passed away from mesothelioma in 2006, according to a Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein press release dated Nov. 30, 2010. The unnamed mesothelioma victim was exposed to asbestos during the 1960s, when he worked to install asbestos packing and gaskets in ships' engine rooms. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cook Family Investigates Death Due to Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- The family of Denis Cook, who died because of mesothelioma, is trying to shed light on how he became exposed to asbestos, the Watford Observer reports. Mr. Cook was 85 years old when he died on Nov. 12, 2009, at the Peace Hospice, Watford, after succumbing to mesothelioma. His widow, Joan, now hopes to find out when, where and how Mr. Cook came into contact with asbestos dust. Speaking about the death of his father, Denis' son Stuart said, "It was a very short term illness and was a very big shock to the family at the time. My mother is now 80 years old and she is doing well considering the circumstances." Stuart said although the family now lives in Croxley Green, Denis Cook worked primarily around the Heathrow/London area, but unfortunately official employment records only go back 50 years. Denis Cook spent much of his working life in the London and South East area. After the war, Denis worked for the Ministry of Works in London and after that spent time in construction work as a carpenter with companies including Taylor Woodrow. Denis Cook went on to work for a builders' merchants type business with depots across the south. This work, with Merchant Trading Limited, continued until 1966 until he took a job as a machine technician with Technicolor. From 1974 until his retirement in 1989, Denis Cook was senior storekeeper for Colne Valley Water Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA Govt. Reaffirms Obligation to Combat Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------------- South Australia's Minister for Industrial Relations, Paul Holloway, on Nov. 28, 2001, used the 10th annual Asbestos Memorial Day to reaffirm the South Australian Government's commitment to combating the ongoing harm created by asbestos, TTKN News reports. Mr. Holloway told a memorial service at Jack Watkins Park at Kilburn that from Jan. 31, 2011, proceedings in the Dust Diseases List of the District Court will be heard by Judges in the Industrial Relations Court. Mr. Holloway also released the second annual progress report of the Asbestos Safety Action Plan. He said, "This Plan is now two years old, and aims to reduce illness and disease caused by exposure to asbestos, by providing a single, coordinated framework to safely identify, manage and remove asbestos." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Dismissal in Reaser Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which dismissed a Christine Reaser's wrongful-death lawsuit on forum non conveniens grounds rather than granting a stay while a jurisdictional question is resolved. In an unpublished opinion, the Appeals Court said the trial court correctly found that a suitable alternative forum existed but should have stayed rather than dismissed the action. Mrs. Reaser sued several companies, alleging her husband, Robert Reaser, died of mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos products while serving in the Navy for two decades. An action Mrs. Reaser filed against the same defendants in Florida had been removed to federal court and is pending there. A.W. Chesterton moved to dismiss the California case on forum non conveniens grounds, noting the Reasers had lived in Florida from Mr. Reaser's 1971 retirement from the Navy until his death in 2008. Mrs. Reaser opposed the motion, saying the defendants did not show that Florida was a suitable alternative forum. She noted that Hill Bros. Chemical Co. had filed an affidavit in the Florida action, asserting it was not subject to personal jurisdiction there. Mrs. Reaser appealed. The appeals court noted that if the case is resolved in another jurisdiction, the stayed action would be dismissed. However, if the plaintiff cannot obtain relief in another forum, a stay entitles her to pursue her claims in California. The panel reversed and remanded. Mrs. Reaser's attorney was Brian P. Barrow, Esq., of Simon, Eddins & Greenstone in Long Beach, Calif. Hill Bros. attorneys were Ruth Segal, Esq., Ryan M. Terschluse, Esq., and Rosemary H. Do, Esq., of Lynberg & Watkins in Los Angeles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found in Valhalla Apartments in Edmonton ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hundreds of downtown residents seek temporary shelter after a high rise fire at the Valhalla Apartments in Edmonton, Canada, led to the discovery of asbestos, Metro reports. The discovery was made in the drywall during inspections following the Nov. 23, 2010 fire, which destroyed two suites at the Valhalla Apartments. All residents of the building, located at 113 Street and 99 Avenue, have been told they will need to find other accommodations until it can be removed. Jeannie Lloyd lives on the 14th floor with her daughter. She found out during a meeting held at a nearby church that she would have to move somewhere else. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Vacates Board Decision in Clark --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated the Feb. 5, 2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals in a case involving asbestos styled Larry S. Clark, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Moorman entered judgment in Case No. 09-1268 on Oct. 29, 2010. The pro se appellant, Larry S. Clark, appealed the Board ruling, which denied entitlement to service connection for (1) degenerative bone or joint disease, claimed as due to exposure to asbestos and/or ionizing radiation; (2) psychosis, claimed as due to exposure to asbestos; (3) residuals of a head injury; (4) residuals of exposure to asbestos; and (5) residuals of exposure to ionizing radiation. Mr. Clark filed an informal brief, and the Secretary filed a brief. This appeal was timely. The matters were remanded for readjudication consistent with this decision. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Denies Petition in Stonewall Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, denied a petition in a case involving asbestos styled Stonewall Insurance Company, Petitioner v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Fuller-Austin Insulation Company, Real Party In Interest. The Panel entered judgment in Case No. B223251 on Nov. 1, 2010. In 1994, Fuller-Austin Insulation Company filed a declaratory relief action against about 20 excess insurance carriers to establish coverage for asbestos-related personal injury claims. Throughout the past 16 years, all defendants but one, Stonewall Insurance, have been dismissed from the case. The case is awaiting retrial following this court's opinion in Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Highlands Ins. Co. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 958, in which the Appeal Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment entered following a phased bench and jury trial. The trial court in the first trial ruled that Fuller-Austin's primary umbrella policies were exhausted as a matter of law as the result of settlement payments by primary insurers. In anticipation of the retrial, Fuller-Austin filed a motion in limine to prohibit Stonewall, an excess insurer, from presenting evidence or argument challenging the exhaustion of the umbrella policies. The Appeal Court held that the respondent court correctly granted the motion. Accordingly, the Appeal Court denied the petition. From the mid-1940s to the mid 1980s, Fuller-Austin was in the business of installing and removing building materials containing asbestos. Dynalectron Corp. acquired Fuller-Austin in 1974. Fuller-Austin continued to operate as a subsidiary of DynCorp until it ceased operations in 1987. In the late 1980s, Fuller-Austin began to face thousands of asbestos-related personal injury claims. The number of claims escalated sharply in the early 1990s. Fuller-Austin tendered the claims to its primary general liability insurance carriers, who defended the claims until Fuller-Austin filed for bankruptcy in 1998. The petition for writ of mandate was denied and a stay order issued June 23, 2010 was vacated. Costs of this proceeding are awarded to Fuller-Austin. Musik, Peeler & Garrett LLP (Susan J. Field, Esq., Kenneth G. Katel, Esq., and Jennifer M. Kokes, Esq.) represented Petitioner. ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Devon Firm Indicted on Asbestos Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Petra Bond, the co-owner of a North Devon, England, scrap yard and skip hire company has been sent to prison for nine months for illegally burning and burying waste including asbestos at a site near Bideford, according to an Environment Agency press release dated Dec. 1, 2010. The case was brought by the Environment Agency. The 66-year-old Mrs. Bond, from Shebbear was sentenced at Exeter Crown Court on Dec. 1, 2010. Her son and business partner, the 40-year-old Julian Goddard was ordered to pay a total of GBP7,750 in fines and costs. The pair, who ran Auto Disposals and Bideford Skip Hire, had been convicted of a series of waste offences after a five day trial in Exeter in November 2010. The jury heard how in 2006 there were a series of fires at the premises that damaged a large asbestos-clad shed. Mrs. 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, Mrs. 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. It is estimated the damaged shed contained around 15 tons of bonded asbestos of which only 1.8 tons could be accounted for by Mrs. Bond. 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 Mrs. 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. Mrs. 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, Mrs. Bond said it was "too expensive." A couple of skips of mixed waste were also buried at the same time. 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. Mrs. Bond, of Aish Park, Shebbear received a custodial sentence after admitting two waste offenses and being found guilty of another four offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 including burying oil contaminated waste, mixed waste and asbestos at the premises of Auto Disposal and Bideford Skip Hire. Mr. Goddard was fined GBP3,750 and ordered to pay GBP4,000 costs after being found guilty to two offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The investigation was carried out by the Environment Agency's regional Environmental Crime Team. Solicitors acting for the Environment Agency will be making a Proceeds of Crime Application. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honda Ordered to Pay JPY54MM in Asbestos Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 1, 2010, Honda Motor Co. was ordered to pay JPY54 million in compensation to 61-year-old Hidenari Hane, a former mechanic who claimed he suffered mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos while working at a factory of Honda's subsidiary in Nagoya from April 1968 to December 1969, Japan Today reports. In handing down the ruling at the Tokyo District Court, Presiding Judge Koichiro Matsumoto said, "The risks of being exposed to asbestos had been known by the time the pneumoconiosis law was enacted in 1960 at the latest, and a major company like Honda should have been fully aware of the risks and the damages at the factory were foreseeable." Judge Matsumoto also said that Honda had "the obligation to take such measures as prohibiting workers to spray air around brake drums, which use asbestos, for cleaning, so as to prevent the spread of dust, or to order them to wear masks." It is rare that asbestos-related damages have been recognized in a case involving an automaker. Honda plans to appeal the sentence. Mr. Hane was diagnosed in 2007 as having mesothelioma, and the labor standards inspection office in Nagoya also recognized that he deserves worker's compensation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carper Action v. Honeywell, John Crane Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Othella Carper, on Nov. 17, 2010, filed an asbestos lawsuit against Honeywell International Inc. and John Crane in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. In her suit, Mrs. Carper claims her recently deceased father Paul Towell's exposure to asbestos began when he worked as a pipefitter, welder and carpenter at various locations beginning in the 1940s. In her complaint, Mrs. Carper alleges Honeywell and John Crane caused Mr. Towell to develop mesothelioma after his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career. Mr. Towell died on June 30, 1999. In her six-count complaint, Mrs. Carper seeks a judgment of more than US$150,000, economic damages of more than US$50,000 and compensatory damages of more than US$100,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems just. She also seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants and to deter similar conduct in the future. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Carper in Case No. 10-L-603. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Welcomes News on Mesothelioma Awareness ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 29, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed House Resolution 771, which annually recognizes Sept. 26 as National Mesothelioma Day, according to a Simmons Law Firm press release dated Dec. 1, 2010. As a long time advocate for patients and families affected by mesothelioma, the Simmons law firm is pleased to observe this victory with clients, their families and the mesothelioma community. Mike Angelides, Simmons firm managing partner, said, "The passage of House Res. 771 creates a powerful tool that will help raise awareness about mesothelioma and the dangers of exposure to asbestos. "Nearly 3,000 Americans are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year, and the more we can do to promote awareness about this deadly cancer, the better chance we have of fully banning asbestos and advancing critical medical research." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Suit v. Chevron, BP Transferred to MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit filed against Chevron USA and BP Products North America has been transferred to a multidistrict litigation panel in Harris County, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. Kathleen Trahan and Chris Trahan, on behalf of Emery Trahan, sued Chevron in April for his death, claiming the company allowed him to work around asbestos-containing products which caused him to develop lung cancer. Court records show that BP was later added as defendant. The Trahans claim Emery Trahan worked as a helper, electrician and operator at Gulf Oil Corp.'s Port Arthur facility, which is now owned by Chevron. They allege that during his career, Emery Trahan worked near asbestos dust and fibers, causing him to develop lung cancer. He died from the disease on Oct. 24, 2008. BP attorney Thomas Taylor, Esq., of the Houston law firm Andrews Kurth, filed the notice of transfer under rule 13 of tag-along case on Sept. 22, 2010, court records show. Judge Mark Davidson, 11th District Court, presides over the asbestos case MDL. J. Keith Hyde, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont represents them in Case No. E186-552. Eventually, the case will be transferred back to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, for trial. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Facing 11,300 Actions at Sept. 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- Covidien Public Limited Company says that, as of Sept. 24, 2010, there were about 11,300 asbestos liability cases pending against its subsidiary, Mallinckrodt Inc., according to the Company's annual report filed on Nov. 22, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of June 25, 2010, there were about 11,100 asbestos liability cases pending against Mallinckrodt. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010) Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based principally on allegations of past distribution of products incorporating asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Covidien Public Limited Company develops, manufactures and sells healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings. Its products are found in almost every hospital in the United States, and the Company has a significant and growing presence in non-U.S. markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx's Long-Term Reserve at $39.5M in Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims was US$39.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$44 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims was US$41 million as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2010) The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims was US$6.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2010, compared with US$8 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation and removal services, including asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company also enters into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation systems. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 202 Actions Pending v. Entrx Corp. at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation faced 202 pending asbestos cases as of Sept. 30, 2010 and 239 pending cases as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company faced 215 pending asbestos cases as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2010) Prior to 1975, the Company was engaged in the sale and installation of asbestos-related insulation materials, which has resulted in numerous claims of personal injury allegedly related to asbestos exposure. Some of these claims are now being brought by the children and close relatives of persons who have died, allegedly as a result of the direct or indirect exposure to asbestos. To date all of the Company's asbestos-related injury claims have been paid and defended by its insurance carriers. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded 100 new cases initiated, 96 defense judgments and dismissals, 41 plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 137 resolved cases. The average indemnity paid on plaintiff judgments and settled cases were US$81,268 and the average indemnity paid on all resolved cases was US$24,321. Total indemnity payments were US$3,332,000. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 188 new cases initiated, 168 defense judgments and dismissals, 52 plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 220 resolved cases. The average indemnity paid on plaintiff judgments and settled cases were US$102,788 and the average indemnity paid on all resolved cases was US$24,295. Total indemnity payments were US$5,345,000. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation and removal services, including asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company also enters into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation systems. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx Posts $46MM Insurance Coverage at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation has determined that the minimum probable insurance coverage available to satisfy asbestos-related injury claims exceeds its estimated future liability for such claims of US$46 million as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$52 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The minimum probable insurance coverage available to satisfy asbestos-related injury claims exceeded the Company's estimated future liability for such claims of US$48 million as of June 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2010) This determination assumes that the general trend of reducing asbestos-related injury claims experienced prior to 2006 will resume and that the average indemnity and direct legal costs of each resolved claim will not materially increase. The determination also assumes that the insurance companies remain solvent and live up to what the Company believes is their obligation to continue to cover its exposure with regards to these claims. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation and removal services, including asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company also enters into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation systems. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Action Still Ongoing v. Metalclad in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, is still involved in asbestos insurance coverage litigation filed by ACE Property & Casualty Company, Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Company. On Feb. 23, 2005, ACE, Central National and Industrial, which are all related entities, filed a declaratory relief lawsuit (the ACE Lawsuit) against Metalclad and a number of Metalclad's other liability insurers, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last four to five years. The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding a variety of coverage issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving whether historical and currently pending asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability. Whether any particular asbestos lawsuit is properly classified as being subject to an aggregate limit of liability depends upon whether or not the suit falls within the "products" or "completed operations" hazards found in most of the liability policies issued to Metalclad. The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from Metalclad. The ACE Lawsuit is principally about coverage responsibility among the several insurers, as well as total coverage. The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of a June 2004 settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the Allstate policy. Under the settlement agreement the Company received US$2,500,000 from Allstate in consideration of releasing Allstate from a potential liability under a US$5,000,000 limits insurance policy. The ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company's incurring costs in connection with obligations the Company may have to indemnify Allstate under that settlement agreement. Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad Insulation Corporation in October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification obligations in the settlement agreement. The Company does not believe that it has any legal obligation to assume or pay for such defense. If Allstate is required to provide indemnity for the Company's asbestos-related lawsuits, it is likely that the Company would have to indemnify Allstate for asbestos-related claims that it defends up to US$2,500,000 in the aggregate. If Allstate is not required to provide indemnity, the Company would have no liability to Allstate. The Company has accrued US$375,000 as a potential loss in connection with the Allstate matter. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation installation and removal services, including asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company also enters into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation systems. ********* 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. Leah Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, 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 * * *