/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110311.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 11, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 50 Headlines ALLIANT ENERGY: Pension Plan to Appeal Forecasted $23MM Damages AMERICAN EXPRESS: Can't Halt Merchants' Class Actions AMWAY CORP: Superior Court OKs Gift Card Class Action Settlement APOLLO GROUP: Stock Drop Not Connected to Class Action Ruling ASIAINFO-LINKAGE INC: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending BNSF RAILWAY: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge Suit BOULDER, CO: Jail Postcard Policy Class Action Certified CHEMED CORP: Vitas Unit Continues to Defend Labor Suit in Calif. CHEMED CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Suit in New York COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS: Condominium Buyers File Class Action CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Prescription Data Sales DIRECTV: Continues to Defend Liberty Media Litigation DIRECTV: Continues to Defend Early Cancellation Fees Suits DOLLAR THRIFTY: Continues to Defends Antitrust Suit in California DOLLAR THRIFTY: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Dillon" Suit DRIL-QUIP INC: Continues to Defend "Deepwater Horizon" Lawsuits DULUTH: May Face Class Action Over Rental Ordinance EMI MUSIC: Judge Has Yet to Approve Class Action Settlement ENGLISH MONTREAL SCHOOL: Defending Against Sex Abuse Class Suit ENTERGY TEXAS: Settlement Term Sheet Agreed in Louisiana Suit EQUINIX INC: Sued Over Misleading Financial Statements FANNIE MAE: Expert Witness in Securities Class Action Dismissed JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss New York Suit Still Pending JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Decision on Appeal in N.Y. Suits Dismissal KV PHARMA: 8th Cir. Revives Class Action Over Adulterated Drugs LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Suit Over Vacation Policies LIFE PARTNERS: Sued Over Fraudulent Life Expectancy Estimates MILESTONE AV: Recalls 2,500 Power Conditioners/Surge Protectors NEW MEXICO GAS: Residents in Gas Shut-Off Suit Seek More Damages NISOURCE INC: Pays $2.7MM in 2011 for "Tawney" Suit Settlement NISOURCE INC: Sixth Circuit Affirms Settlement of Kentucky Suits NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: To Appeal Ruling in Dividend Class Action OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal From Facebook Beacon Suit Still Pending OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Amended "Hines" Suit PEABODY ENERGY: Dismissal of Mississippi Class Suit Now Final PROGRESS ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling of Appeal in Florida Lawsuit PROGRESS ENERGY: Defends Class Suits Over Proposed Duke Merger REHABCARE GROUP: Being Sold to Kindred for Too Little, Suit Says SLM CORP: Awaits Final Court Approval of "Arthur" Suit Settlement SLM CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation in New York SPRINT NEXTEL: "Unlimited Data" Plan Not Unlimited, Suit Claims SUNJOY INDUSTRIES: Recalls 2,400 Steel Outdoor Fireplaces TRANSOCEAN LTD: Securities Suits Remain Pending in New York TREE.COM INC: Appeal in "Carson" Suit Remains Pending TREMONT PARTNERS: Removes "Lakeview" Civil Action to N.D. Calif. UNITED ONLINE: "Michaels" Suit Remains Pending in Washington UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Price-Fixing Suit in New York UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Barber Auto Sales Suit in Alabama UNITED STATES: May Face Class Suit Over Guatamela Syphilis Study URS CORP: Continues Defense in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit VERISK ANALYTICS: Awaits Court Approval of "Schafer" Suit Deal VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Remains Administratively Closed VERISK ANALYTICS: Certiorari Petition Junked in "Taylor" Suit VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in "Cook" Suit Remains Pending VERISK ANALYTICS: Awaits Court Okay of "Gluzman" Suit Settlement VERIZON COMMS: Retirees' Pension Suit Get Class Action Status VULCAN MATERIALS: Continues to Defend Florida Antitrust Litigation VULCAN MATERIALS: "Addair" Suit Remains Pending in West Virginia W. ROSS: Ministry Takes Student Abuse Allegations "Seriously" WEIL TENNIS: Sued in California for False Advertising WESCO FINANCIAL: Defends Two Lawsuits Over Berkshire Merger WILLIS GROUP: Settlement Talks in Gender Suit Still Ongoing WILLIS GROUP: Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Lawsuits YAHOO! INC: Files Brief in Support of "Overture" Suit Settlement YELLOW BOOK: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Facing 550 Pending Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Subsidiaries Still Facing Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: 110 Manhattan Steam Main Actions Open v. CECONY ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Faces 15,476 Abex Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Posts $747.1MM Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records $163.6MM Receivable at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Has $432MM Retirement Obligations at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 12,000 Premises, Product Claims Pending v. FMC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qwest Corp. Records $31MM Obligations at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Has $12.03MM Claims Reserve at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Motions Denied in Mueller Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Split Ruling in Bartz Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Hood Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Dismissal Bid in CSX Claims v. Barber ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Dismissal Bid in CSX Case v. Collins ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Facing 65,263 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Facing Coverage Litigation in N.J. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings Corp. Cites $17.8MM ARO at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Records $3.8MM CAROs at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Windstream Corp. AROs Total $41.7MM at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anadarko Petroleum Still Facing Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 886 W.Va. Claims, 11 Pa. Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Carries $35.67MM A&E Reserve at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Faces in Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITC Holdings Corp. Posts $3.3MM AROs at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Short's Actions on Hazard Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board Decision in Gilbert Set Aside, Remanded ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling in Cole's Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bostick Pleads Guilty to Breaching CAA Standard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Payout Bill "Worries" Victims and Advocates ASBESTOS UPDATE: Puyallup Firm Fined $437.3T for Safety Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hooley's Widow Seeks GBP350,000 in Payout Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pinehurst Local Reaches GBP70T Deal w/ Plessey ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Actions Filed in St. Clair Co. on Jan. 4 & 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allen County OKs $500T for City-County Building ASBESTOS UPDATE: $200,000 Grant Awarded for Tulsa Site Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: British Rail Storeman's Death Linked to Hazard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belper Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grantham Rail Worker's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Subject to Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Pending in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Fluor Corp. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 858 Lawsuits Pending v. GATX, Units at Jan. 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Power Records $300,000 Dec. 31 Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holdings Posts $15MM Current Obligations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Records 30,000 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Posts $52MM Dec. 31 Insurance Asset ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Posts $79.83MM Dec. 31 Current Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Pending Against Spence and Hoke ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Posts $307.62MM Dec. 31 Liability ********* ALLIANT ENERGY: Pension Plan to Appeal Forecasted $23MM Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- The Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan intends to file an appeal from a court decision, which would possibly make the Plan pay $23 million in damages, according to Alliant Energy Corp.'s February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that certain Plan participants who received distributions prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 because the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age. These Plan participants are limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump sum distribution and/or received any form of distribution calculated under the Plan's prior formula after that benefit was determined to be more valuable than their benefit calculated under the Plan's cash balance formula. The Court has certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from Jan. 1, 1998 through Aug. 17, 2006 including: 1) persons who received distributions from Jan. 1, 1998 through Feb. 28, 2002; and 2) persons who received distributions from Feb. 29, 2002 through Aug. 17, 2006. In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability in the lawsuit and decided with respect to damages that prejudgment interest on damages will be allowed at the prime rate at the time of the judgment. A bench trial on the issue of damages was held in June 2010, at which the Court heard evidence on issues related to the amount of damages. In December 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that decided the interest crediting rate that the Plan used to project the cash balance accounts of the plaintiffs during the class period should have been 8.2% and a pre-retirement mortality discount will not apply to the damages calculation. Based on this opinion and order, the Plan currently believes that the final judgment of damages by the Court may be up to $23 million, which does not include any award for plaintiff's attorney's fees or costs. The Plan is contesting the Court's decision and intends to pursue appropriate appeals after the final judgment is rendered by the Court. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have not recognized any potential liability for damages from the lawsuit while this matter is being contested. Alliant Energy is currently unable to predict the final outcome of the class action lawsuit or the ultimate impact on its financial condition or results of operations but believes an adverse outcome could have a material effect on retirement plan funding and expense for Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Can't Halt Merchants' Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------- Patricia Hurtado, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that American Express Co. can't force merchants to resolve disputes with the company individually rather than in class-action lawsuits, a federal appeals court said on March 8, confirming an earlier ruling. Retailers aren't bound by an arbitration agreement requiring them to press any complaints against American Express singly, the New York-based court ruled. The ruling and a previous order void a clause in American Express's contract with merchants. In the lawsuit, New York and California merchants contend that American Express is illegally bundling its products through its "honor all cards" policy. American Express argued that merchants were barred from joining class-action, or group, lawsuits, against the company. The U.S. Supreme Court last year sent the case back to the appeals court. The appeals panel confirmed its prior decision and, in turn, on March 8 sent the case to U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels in New York for further proceedings. "As we did earlier, we find Amex has brought no serious challenge to the plaintiffs demonstration that their claims cannot be reasonably pursued as individual actions, whether in federal court or in arbitration," the appeals court said. "As the class action waiver in this case precludes plaintiffs from enforcing their statutory rights, we find the arbitration provision unenforceable," the judges said. Original Suit The rulings grew out of a case in which retailers sued American Express seeking the right to accept AmEx credit cards requiring customers to pay their balances each month, without having to accept the company's newer credit cards, which don't require full payment. The newer cards aren't used by the high-end customers preferred by stores and consequently aren't worth the high fees imposed on merchants by American Express, the merchants said in their lawsuit. American Express's standard agreement with its merchants calls for all disputes to be resolved through individual arbitration. Christine Elliot, a spokeswoman for New York-based American Express, couldn't be immediately reached for comment. Gary Friedman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, declined to comment immediately, saying he was reviewing the decision. The original lawsuit is Italian colors Restaurant v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., 3:03-cv-03719, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California San Francisco). The appeal is In Re. American Express Merchants' Litigation, 06-1871-cv, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York). AMWAY CORP: Superior Court OKs Gift Card Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court has approved a settlement agreement in a class-action lawsuit alleging Amway Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and its related companies Quixtar Inc., a Virginia corporation, and Alticor Inc., a Michigan corporation, sold and marketed gift cards that contained a notation instructing consumers to "redeem before" a certain date, which plaintiffs contended violated numerous state laws prohibiting or restricting the expiration of gift cards. The settlement provides that consumers will soon be able to redeem or replace more than $20 million worth of expired gift cards. In Adell v. Quixtar Inc. et al., plaintiffs alleged that as a result of Amway's improper placement of a "redeem before" date on its gift cards, many consumers believed their cards had expired and either disposed of them, or never redeemed them for merchandise. Through a sales force of Independent Business Owners ("IBOs"), Amway marketed and sold various categories of "Ribbon Gift Cards" throughout the United States. Amway has denied that its use of "redeem before" dates constituted expiration dates in violation of any state law. "Amway received millions of dollars from consumers for gift cards that were never redeemed and that contained 'redeem before' dates that have passed," said James Kawahito, class co-counsel of Kawahito, Shraga & Westrick LLP (Los Angeles). "In California and many other states, laws designed to protect consumers make it illegal for gift cards to contain any expiration date." After more than two years of litigation, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Feb. 16, 2011. Class-action notices informing consumers they can replace expired or discarded Amway gift cards by visiting http://www.giftcardsettlement.com/will be sent out by April 10, 2011. Consumers will have until June 20, 2011 to obtain a new card. "We are extremely pleased that Amway will no longer be placing 'redeem before' dates on its gift cards," said Lisa Brant, class co-counsel, Brant Law Offices, APC (San Diego). "Now our goal is to get the word out to as many consumers as possible to ensure they are aware of their ability to redeem or replace their gift cards, even if they have already thrown them away." Additional Settlement Benefits to Consumers Include: * Class members will have the opportunity to redeem expired gift cards or exchange gift cards for new cards that do not have expiration dates. * Class members who discarded expired gift cards can receive new gift cards. * Amway will cease using the words "redeem before" preceding dates on gift cards or any language that specifies a particular date or time period by which redemption must occur. * Amway will make a $200,000 product donation to a charitable organization. Brant Law Offices -- http://www.brant-law.com/-- is a litigation boutique dedicated to providing its clients with efficient, result-oriented representation of the highest caliber. Brant Law Offices specializes in a wide array of litigation areas, including consumer and employment class actions. Since 2008, the law firm of Kawahito Shraga & Westrick LLP -- http://www.kswlawyers.com/-- has obtained over $25 million in relief for consumers and employees in California and nationwide through class-action lawsuits. APOLLO GROUP: Stock Drop Not Connected to Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Gonzales, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reports Apollo Group Inc.'s investors were unfazed by the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the Phoenix company's appeal of a shareholder lawsuit that accused Apollo of hiding a preliminary U.S. Department of Education report. Although the stock dropped 22 cents on March 7 after the Supreme Court ruling that could cause the Phoenix company to pay upwards of $300 million to shareholders, analysts say that stock drop was not related to the court ruling. "The movement in Apollo's stock price was not at all disproportionate to movement in stocks overall," said Trace Urdan, senior analyst with Signal Hill in San Francisco. "I don't think shareholders cared about that announcement." Mr. Urdan said Apollo already had set aside reserves for that settlement. "It's not a big amount of money," he said. Apollo's stock closed at $44.07 on March 7, nowhere near its 52-week low of $33.75 a share. Its 52-week high is $66.69 a share. It still needs to be determined exactly how much Apollo will be paying shareholders, but Mr. Urdan said it most likely won't be the maximum $300 million. A decision on the amount will be made in District Court, according to an 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This class action securities lawsuit, Apollo Group Inc., et al. v. Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, dates back to a preliminary U.S. Education Department report that said the company illegally paid recruiters based on the number of students they enrolled. The company has enough money to cover the lawsuit, according to the SEC filing. "At Nov. 30, 2010, we had unrestricted cash and cash equivalents of $1.0 billion and availability under our principal revolving credit facility of approximately $400 million," according to the 8-K filed on March 7. "We believe we have ample liquidity to fund the payment of any damages that may be payable in connection with this litigation." Last fall, Apollo overhauled its compensation system for recruiters and created programs to help incoming students prepare for the rigors of a university curriculum. For the three months ended Nov. 30, Apollo reported a net income of $236 million on net revenue of $1.3 billion, down from $240 million in net income on $1.3 billion in net revenue for the same period in 2009. The company will report its fiscal 2011 second quarter results on March 29. ASIAINFO-LINKAGE INC: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Notices of appeal from the approval of AsiaInfo-Linkage Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated IPO allocation case still remains pending, the Company disclosed in its February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In December 2001, a securities class action case was filed in New York City against the Company, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering, or its IPO. The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. federal securities laws and was docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc., et al. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of its common stock in the aftermarket as conditions of their purchasing shares in the Company's IPO. The lawsuit further claimed that the alleged practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement. The suit seeks rescission of the plaintiffs' alleged purchases of the Company's common stock as well as unspecified damages. In addition to the case against the Company, various other plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially similar class action cases, or the IPO Allocation Cases, against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against the Company have all been transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of case management. In April 2009, the Company and most of the other issuer defendants in the IPO Allocation Cases reached a definitive agreement with the plaintiffs and the underwriter defendants to settle the IPO Allocation Cases. The agreement was filed with the court in April 2009 and a final approval was granted by the court in October 2009. The final approval was subject to appeal until November 2009. Several objectors filed timely appeals and those appeals remain pending. If the settlement is approved, the Company expects any damages payable to the plaintiffs to be fully funded by the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance policies. If the litigation proceeds, the Company intends to continue to defend the litigation vigorously. Moreover, if the litigation proceeds, the Company believes that the underwriters may have an obligation to indemnify the Company for the legal fees and other costs of defending this suit and that the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance policies would also cover the defense and potential exposure in the suit. BNSF RAILWAY: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge Suit ----------------------------------------------------- BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action lawsuit over fuel surcharges, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints were filed in six federal district courts around the country by rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with respect to unregulated freight transportation services in violation of the antitrust laws and seeking injunctive relief and unspecified treble damages. These cases have been consolidated and are currently pending in the federal district court of the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other Class I railroads in April 2008. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and continues to defend against the allegations vigorously. The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. BNSF Railway Co. -- http://www.bnsf.com/-- formerly known as The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. BNSF Railway operates a railroad system in North America. BOULDER, CO: Jail Postcard Policy Class Action Certified -------------------------------------------------------- Erica Meltzer, writing for Boulder Daily Camera, reports that a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Boulder County Jail's postcard-only mail policy was granted class action status on March 8. The decision broadens the scope of the lawsuit to include all current and future detainees at the jail, not just those named in the lawsuit. The Boulder County Jail implemented the postcard-only policy after two registered sex offenders were accused of trying to "groom" girls in letters from the jail. Inmates can only send mail on jail-issued postcards. The only exception is for mail designated as legal or official. The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a lawsuit last year on behalf of five prisoners that challenged the constitutionality of the policy. ACLU Communications Director Rosemary Harris Lytle said many people in jail are awaiting trials and have not been convicted. And even convicted criminals retain their First Amendment rights, she said. Harris Lytle pointed to civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" and asked whether King could have expressed the same ideas if limited to a postcard. "I don't know if culture-changing communication is coming from the Boulder County Jail, but it might be, and it ought to be protected," she said. On a more mundane level, an incarcerated parent might want to write to her husband about their child without worrying the child will read the communication on a postcard left on the dining room table, or a gay inmate might want to write to his partner without worrying that other inmates will find out he's gay. "All those things deserve the privacy of the envelope," she said. Jail officials said similar policies have been found constitutional in other states, and inmates who want to send mail about a sensitive subject can talk to a jail commander about getting it marked "official." El Paso County, the only other county in Colorado to implement a postcard policy, went back to allowing letters when the ACLU sued them. Federal District Court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel granted class action certification to the Boulder County lawsuit on March 8. That means that the lawsuit can continue even if the named plaintiffs' cases become moot because they are released. "This ensures that all of those who are affected by these unconstitutional policies, all current and future detainees, get relief," Harris Lytle said. Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle said on March 8 that he's cannot comment on the legal significance of the decision, but the reason the jail implemented the policy haven't changed. A hearing on a request for an immediate injunction forcing Boulder County to end its policy is set for April 21. CHEMED CORP: Vitas Unit Continues to Defend Labor Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed by Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White against Chemed Corporation's subsidiary remains pending in a Los Angeles state court, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Vitas Healthcare Corporation, a subsidiary of the Company, is party to a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, in September 2006 by Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White. This case alleges failure to pay overtime and failure to provide meal and rest periods to a purported class of California admissions nurses, chaplains and sales representatives. The case seeks payment of penalties, interest and Plaintiffs' attorney fees. Vitas contests these allegations. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. The lawsuit is in its early stage and the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any, with respect to these allegations. CHEMED CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Chemed Corporation continues to defend itself against a class action filed by Anthony Morangelli and Frank Ercole in New York, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On March 1, 2010, Messrs. Morangelli and Ercole filed a class action lawsuit in federal district court for the Eastern District of New York seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime service technician compensation from Roto-Rooter Services Company and the Company. They also seek payment of penalties, interest and Plaintiffs' attorney fees. The Company contests these allegations. In September 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide class of service technicians, excluding those who signed dispute resolution agreements agreeing to arbitrate claims arising out of their employment. There has been no final determination of the merits of collective treatment of the case. The Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any, related to this case. COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS: Condominium Buyers File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Sieroty, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas continues to deal with disgruntled condominium buyers even though many of the former owners accepted a settlement to walk away from their purchases. Attorneys representing four buyers who participated in the $60 million settlement and a former employee filed a lawsuit on March 7 seeking to have their clients' entire deposits returned. The lawsuit filed in Clark County District Court claimed The Cosmopolitan's owners misled investors into accepting the settlement and receiving 74 of their deposit principal. In their complaint, attorneys with the Las Vegas-based law firm Santoro, Driggs, Walsh, Kearney, Holley and Thompson are seeking class action status and a jury trial to force the owners to return their clients' entire deposit with interest. Deutsche Bank and its subsidiary Nevada Property 1 LLC acquired the property in 2008 from 3700 Associates LLC, the original developer, which defaulted on $760 million in loans made by the German bank. At the time of the purchase on 2005 and 2006, the original developer promised the units would be ready to occupy in early 2008. According to the 16-page complaint, Deutsche Bank and Nevada Property 1 decided to abandon The Cosmopolitan's condominium component and build a hotel-casino property. "Once (they) made that material decision, they were legally and contractually obliged to disclose it. (They) instead decided to conceal their decision and use the class actions that were filed by buyers to negotiate a partial refund of plaintiff's deposits, so that they could coerce (them) into forfeiting over $150 million of their and interest to The Cosmopolitan, despite their decision to convert the project to all-hotel," the complaint said. Messages left with officials from The Cosmopolitan were not returned. The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction to protect Todd Mastej, a former employee of 3700 Associates and Nevada Property 1, from retaliation for passing on documents that showed the units "failed to meet applicable soundproofing standards" and that it was decided in 2009 to make the project all hotel and make "significant material changes to the plans of their units." The complaint accused the owner of committing fraud "by negotiating a class action settlement that called for a partial refund . . . under the auspice that The Cosmopolitan was proceeding with its construction and conveyance of (the) condominium units, while in reality (they) had no good faith intention or desire to actually" deliver the units. Potential buyers paid deposits of 20% to secure one of the condominiums. In April 2010, Cosmopolitan developers finalized a $60 million settlement with more than 400 buyers involved in a class action lawsuit. The luxury condominiums on the Strip had been priced in the high six-figure to low-seven figure range when the Las Vegas housing market collapsed. Approximately $250 million in deposits were paid to hold the condos. Even after the settlement, Deutsche Bank and Nevada Property 1 retained more than $150 million in deposits and interest, according to the lawsuit. CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Prescription Data Sales ------------------------------------------------------------- Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Pharmacy raked in millions by selling consumers' confidential prescription information to some of the nation's largest pharmaceutical manufacturers, according to a class action. "Not content with the receipt of the substantial funds generated from the performance of pharmacy services, defendants instead chose to generate additional sources of revenue from the confidential prescription information entrusted by consumers to defendants," the complaint in Philadelphia County Court states. Arthur Steinberg and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund filed the suit on behalf of other consumers who have received unsolicited communications after CVS allegedly sold customers' private information to Eli Lilly and Co., Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and other drug manufacturers. "Specifically, in exchange for the receipt of funds, direct promotional letters were sent to physicians of consumers by defendant CVS Caremark in order to promote and tout specific prescription drugs of pharmaceutical manufacturers who contracted with defendant CVS Caremark" for use of prescription information, according to the complaint. "While touted as an 'RXReview Program' by defendant CVS Caremark, in reality, the physician communications were nothing more than a profit-making opportunity," the class claims. CVS' scheme contradicts its "public pronouncements as to the sanctity of both consumers' privacy and the physician-patient relationship," according to the complaint. CVS also never mentioned that it sold customers' confidential information on the "Notice of Privacy Practices" that is included with prescriptions, according to the complaint. The complaint quotes a statement CVS Caremark CEO Thomas Ryan made to investors. "We have more information on the consumer and their behavior than anybody else, and we share it with our over-the- counter suppliers," Mr. Ryan said, according to the complaint. In 2009, CVS settled related claims from the Department of Health and Human Services and Federal Trade Commission. Under the agreement with the health department, CVS paid $2.25 million to settle claims related to media reports that its pharmacies were throwing pill bottles with customers' personal information into open dumpsters. A spokesman for the Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy, which represents the class, told Courthouse News that the disclosure of confidential prescription information can be particularly upsetting for a person with HIV or a psychiatric disorder. CVS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The class seeks statutory damages and disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, alleging violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. A copy of the Complaint in Steinberg, et al. v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et al., Case No. 110300253 (Pa. C.P. Ct., Philadelphia Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/08/cvscaremark.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Senoff, Esq. CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & CONBOY 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 507 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 609-1350 E-mail: dsenoff@cmbclaw.com - and - William R. Caroselli, Esq. CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & CONBOY 20 Stanwix Street, 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 E-mail: wcaroselli@cbmclaw.com DIRECTV: Continues to Defend Liberty Media Litigation ----------------------------------------------------- DirecTV continues to defend itself in a purported class action lawsuit related to the 2009 split-off transaction with Liberty Media Corporation, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. A purported class action complaint was filed on February 9, 2010 and amended on April 23, 2010, in Delaware Chancery Court against certain past and present directors of Liberty Media Corporation alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as Liberty board members in connection with the business terms and approval process by Liberty stockholders of the merger of Liberty Entertainment, Inc. with a subsidiary of DIRECTV as part of the Liberty Transaction. The plaintiff purports to represent approximately 85 former Liberty Media Corporation stockholders (other than the defendants) that allegedly held approximately 1.8 million Liberty Media Corporation shares prior to the consummation of the Liberty Transaction. The complaint alleges, among other things, that John Malone and certain other Liberty Media Corporation stockholders received disparate allocation of consideration in the Liberty Transaction. The complaint seeks equitable reallocation and disgorgement of the improper consideration received by the defendants and other relief. The defendants have requested indemnification and have tendered defense of this litigation to DIRECTV pursuant to agreements executed as part of the Liberty Transaction and DIRECTV has elected to take control of the defense. DIRECTV (NASDAQ:DTV) delivers premium video service to more than 28 million subscribers worldwide. Through its subsidiaries and affiliated companies in the United States, Brazil, Mexico and other countries in Latin America, DIRECTV provides digital television service to more than 19.2 million customers in the United States and more than 9 million customers in Latin America. DIRECTV sports and entertainment properties include three Regional Sports Networks (Northwest, Rocky Mountain and Pittsburgh) as well as a 65 percent interest in Game Show Network. DIRECTV: Continues to Defend Early Cancellation Fees Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- DirecTV continues to defend itself in class action lawsuits relating to its early cancellation fees, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early cancellation fees the Company assesses its customers when they do not fulfill their programming commitments. Several of these lawsuits are pending -- some in California state court purporting to represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts purporting to represent nationwide classes. The lawsuits seek both monetary and injunctive relief. While the theories of liability vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these fees under state consumer protection laws as both unfair and inadequately disclosed to customers. Each of the lawsuits is at an early stage. Where possible, the Company is moving to compel these cases to arbitration in accordance with its Customer Agreement, but in states such as California where the enforceability of the arbitration provision is limited, the Company intends to defend against these allegations in court. The Company believes its early cancellation fees are adequately disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of the costs it incur when customers cancel service before fulfilling their programming commitments. DIRECTV (NASDAQ:DTV) delivers premium video service to more than 28 million subscribers worldwide. Through its subsidiaries and affiliated companies in the United States, Brazil, Mexico and other countries in Latin America, DIRECTV provides digital television service to more than 19.2 million customers in the United States and more than 9 million customers in Latin America. DIRECTV sports and entertainment properties include three Regional Sports Networks (Northwest, Rocky Mountain and Pittsburgh) as well as a 65 percent interest in Game Show Network. DOLLAR THRIFTY: Continues to Defends Antitrust Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is still defending itself against a class action lawsuit alleging violations of California laws, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On November 14, 2007, a purported class action was filed against the Company, by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the Southern District Court of California, claiming that the pass through of the California Trade and Tourism Commission and airport concession fee authorized by legislation effective in January 2007 constitute antitrust violations of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair Competition Act. The case is styled Michael Shames; Gary Gramkow, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent-A-Car, Inc., Coast Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission and Caroline Beteta (No. 07 CV 2174 H BLM (S.D. Cal.)). The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 25, 2008 the Court issued an order denying the motion as to the antitrust claims but granting the motion to dismiss state law claims. The Court also dismissed The California Travel and Tourism Commission from the litigation based on state action immunity; but thereafter, reversed this decision on October 19, 2010. DOLLAR THRIFTY: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Dillon" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on an appeal made by plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleging breach of contract, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On September 22, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in Illinois state court by Susan and Jeffrey Dillon, individually and on behalf of all persons who rented a vehicle from Thrifty Car Rental in Colorado from September 22, 2006 forward, who signed a rental agreement which obligated them to pay for loss of use of a vehicle if damaged, and who were charged for loss of use or an administrative fee related to the vehicle damage claim. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and for declaratory judgment under the Colorado Uniform Declaratory Judgment Law related to the assessment of loss of use and administrative fees in connection with vehicle damage claims against renters. The case is styled: Susan and Jeffrey Dillon v. DTG Operations, Inc. d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental (Case No. 09CH34874, Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery Division, Illinois). On July 23, 2010, these actions were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on August 19, 2010. DRIL-QUIP INC: Continues to Defend "Deepwater Horizon" Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Dril-Quip, Inc., is still defending itself against several class action and other lawsuits arising out of the "Deepwater Horizon" incident, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. The Company has been named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in nine class action lawsuits and nine other lawsuits arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, which occurred on April 20, 2010, and involved explosions and fire on the semi- submersible rig Deepwater Horizon and resulted in an oil spill. These actions were filed against the Company between April 28, 2010 and January 17, 2011. As of February 22, 2011, sixteen of the lawsuits have been consolidated, along with hundreds of other lawsuits not directly involving the Company, in the multi-district proceeding In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, and are pending in the federal court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The remaining two cases are pending in the federal courts for the Southern District of Alabama and the Northern District of Alabama. The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, violation of state and federal environmental and other laws and regulations, negligence, gross negligence, strict liability and/or property damages and generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages and/or declaratory relief. The judge presiding over the MDL Proceeding is also presiding over a separate proceeding filed by affiliates of Transocean Ltd. under the Limitation of Liability Act in the federal court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its liability for claims arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident to the value of its rig and freight. On February 18, 2011, Transocean impleaded the Company in the Limitation Action. The procedural effect of Transocean's action is to make the Company a defendant in any of the actions consolidated in the MDL Proceeding where the plaintiffs file or have filed a claim in the Limitation Action. However, at this time there are no new allegations against the Company as a result of Transocean's action, and the Company is entitled to assert all the defenses available to it in the actions to which it was already a party. The Company intends to vigorously defend any litigation, fine and/or penalty relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident. Accordingly, no liability has been accrued in conjunction with these matters. DULUTH: May Face Class Action Over Rental Ordinance --------------------------------------------------- Duluth News Tribune reports that the city of Duluth has been asked to delay implementation of a recently passed rental reform ordinance or face a class-action lawsuit. A letter sent on March 7 by Duluth attorney Jerome Feriancek includes a draft complaint that he states will be served before week's end if the city will not pause to reconsider new regulations poised to take effect shortly. Along with the suit, Mr. Feriancek said he also intends to file a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of local property owners whom he represents. "There is an obvious underlying motive within this particular ordinance with respect to excluding certain people from Duluth neighborhoods," Mr. Feriancek claims in his letter. "At a minimum, if there was no intent, it will have an unfortunate impact on neighborhoods, resulting in the wholesale exclusion of certain segments of the Duluth population." He also expressed concern about the effect the new rules will have on property owners and the city's rationale for the fees that would be assessed. The Duluth News Tribune will have more on this story as it develops. EMI MUSIC: Judge Has Yet to Approve Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Drew Hasselback, writing for the Financial Post, reports that a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit filed against record label EMI has hit a snag after the son of jazz legend Chet Baker sent a letter to the judge to express concerns. The case of Chesney "Chet" Baker Estate vs Sony BMG Music (Canada) is a class action that was supposed to be resolved on March 14. A hearing had been scheduled to ask a judge to approve a proposed settlement. Four record labels, Sony Music Entertainment Canada, EMI Music Canada, Universal Music Canada and Warner Music Canada, have agreed to pay $45-million to composers and publishers for copyright infringement and overdue royalties. As it turned out, counsel need a few more days to sort out some paperwork, so the judge granted another adjournment -- though not before a bit of a monkey wrench was thrown into the process. Chet Baker died in 1998, and Paul Baker, his son, claims a one-eighth interest in his father's estate. He sent a letter to the judge raising an issue about the right of one of the representative plaintiffs, his mother Carol Baker, to enter an agreement on behalf of the estate. At a hearing on March 7, Judge George Strathy asked counsel to provide Paul Baker with copies of the settlement material, then adjourned the motion to March 28. What happens next is still up in the air. He wrote in his endorsement: Counsel for the plaintiffs is considering the appropriate response to the concerns raised by Mr. Baker. This may include the production of further evidence (if available) to satisfy the court and counsel for the defendants that Carol Baker has authority to enter into an settlement agreement on behalf of the estate and on behalf of the corporate plaintiff. It may include a motion to substitute or add another representative plaintiff. It may include some other form of relief. ENGLISH MONTREAL SCHOOL: Defending Against Sex Abuse Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sue Montgomery, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that convicted sex offender Renwick Spence wasn't acting in his duties as teacher when he sexually abused Montreal West High School students, the school board claims in a class-action suit against it. In a 20-page statement of defense, the English Montreal School Board says it bears no responsibility for what happened in Mr. Spence's secluded cottage in Morin Heights, north of Montreal, where the abuse took place in the 1960s and '70s. In his own defense in the suit -- filed by the victims and authorized almost four years ago by Quebec Superior Court -- Mr. Spence also states the school didn't know what he was up to. So far, about 15 alleged victims have come forward to join the class-action suit, but lawyer Careen Hannouche said her firm has learned through questioning Spence and his former students that there are many more. "Others may not have heard of (the class-action suit) or don't want to come forward," she said. Mr. Spence, 81, pleaded guilty to abusing eight male students between 1967 and 1981 and was sentenced to 30 months in prison in December 2007. The boys ranged in age from about 13 to 16. During a parole hearing in 2008, Mr. Spence admitted there could have been more victims than the original eight who went to police. He was granted full parole in 2009. The class action alleges Spence abused his position of authority, inviting students to his cottage and abusing them physically, sexually and/or mentally. It also contends the EMSB, which was then called the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal, was aware of the abuse and didn't act. Ms. Hannouche said they're hoping for a trial date in the fall. "There's always a chance of an out-of-court settlement, but for the moment, it looks like we're going to trial," she said. ENTERGY TEXAS: Settlement Term Sheet Agreed in Louisiana Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Parties to the fiber optic cable litigation pending in a state court in Louisiana have entered into a term sheet establishing basic terms for a settlement, according to Entergy Texas, Inc.'s February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Several property owners have filed a class action suit against Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Services, Inc., ETHC, and Entergy Technology Company in state court in St. James Parish, Louisiana purportedly on behalf of all property owners in Louisiana who have conveyed easements to the defendants. The lawsuit alleges that Entergy installed fiber optic cable across the plaintiffs' property without obtaining appropriate easements. The plaintiffs seek damages equal to the fair market value of the surplus fiber optic cable capacity, including a share of the profits made through use of the fiber optic cables, and punitive damages. Entergy removed the case to federal court in New Orleans; however, the district court remanded the case back to state court. In February 2004, the state court entered an order certifying this matter as a class action. Entergy's appeals of this ruling were denied. The parties have entered into a term sheet establishing basic terms for a settlement that must be approved by the court. Based in Beaumont, Entergy Texas, Inc. provides electric service to about 393,600 customers in Southeast Texas. The company's service area encompasses 26 counties, extending from Newton, Orange and Jefferson counties along the Texas-Louisiana border, south to Chambers County near the Gulf of Mexico, west to Burleson County and north to Robertson and Trinity counties. EQUINIX INC: Sued Over Misleading Financial Statements ------------------------------------------------------ Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Equinix, Inc., et al,. Case No. 11-cv-01016 (N.D. Calif. March 4, 2011), accuses Equinix and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff alleges that between July 29, 2010, and October 5, 2010, inclusive, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, the plaintiff says that defendants failed to disclose that Equinix was having difficulty with the integration of Switch & Data Corporation Facilities Company, Inc., the competitor company it acquired in April 2010, into its operations due to a decline in bookings prior to the close of the acquisition and due to the Company's aggressive synergy plan. Defendants further continuously hyped demand for the Company's colocation services as being robust and failed to disclose that the Company's business model was not working and was causing the Company to experience increased churn and pricing pressure on its colocation services. As a result of defendants' false statements, Equinix's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $105.09 per share on October 5, 2010. On October 5, 2010, Equinix issued a press release announcing revised third quarter and fiscal year 2010 guidance. The Company reported it expected revenue to be in the range of $328 million to $330 million for the third quarter of 2010. The Company further reported it expected revenues for the full year 2010 to be approximately $1.215 billion, 1.2% lower than the midpoint of its previous outlook. After releasing its revised financial guidance on October 5, 2010, Equinix hosted a conference call during which the Company announced it would transition from a demand fulfillment business model to a demand creation model. On this news, Equinix's stock collapsed $34.75 per share to close at $70.34 per share on October 6, 2010, a one-day decline of over 33% on high volume. Equinix is a global network-neutral provider of data centers and Internet exchanges. Equinix offers the following data center services: premium data center colocation, interconnection and exchange services, and outsourced IT infrastructure services. Plaintiff Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension Trust, who purchased common stock during the Class Period, was damaged as the result of defendants' wrongdoing, as alleged in the Complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RODMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com katek@rgrdlaw.com FANNIE MAE: Expert Witness in Securities Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Newberry, writing for Business Courier, reports that Cincinnati class-action lawyer Stan Chesley ran into problems in a Washington, D.C., courtroom last week when his expert witness in a securities fraud class-action lawsuit was dismissed after walking out of a deposition. Mr. Chesley, of the law firm of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, is lead counsel in the case against Fannie Mae, the giant mortgage finance corporation that was taken over by the federal government in 2008. Lead plaintiffs are the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, which have accused Fannie Mae of distorting its financial results to deceive investors. Mr. Chesley is meanwhile facing possible disbarment in Kentucky for his actions as co-counsel in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of people injured by the diet drug popularly known as "fen-phen." He has denied any wrongdoing in his handling of that case and said his role was limited to negotiating the $200 million settlement. According to this post on the Legal Times blog, the judge in the Fannie Mae case dismissed former SEC chairman Harvey Pitt as expert witness after Mr. Pitt walked out in the middle of a deposition conducted by defense lawyers. According to an earlier Legal Times post, Mr. Pitt indicated he was troubled by the way the lawyers had handled the deposition and was "not able to finish a good portion of sentences." During Chesley's own testimony last September, at a hearing in Frankfort on disciplinary charges related to the fen-phen case, the Kentucky Bar Association's chief bar counsel complained that Mr. Chesley couldn't finish his sentences quickly enough. Linda Gosnell told the trial commissioner that if Mr. Chesley continued to give lengthy explanations "of Mr. Chesley's theory of the case" in response to simple questions, the questioning was going to take longer than she had planned. Retired Franklin County (Kentucky) Circuit Judge William Graham, presiding as trial commissioner, said he thought Mr. Chesley's answer was appropriate in that instance. But in a report last month, Judge Graham recommended Mr. Chesley's disbarment, characterizing Mr. Chesley's failure to recollect a key meeting as "not credible" and his claim that he didn't read a subsequent court order as unconvincing. JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss New York Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting a federal court's ruling on its motions to dismiss a number of actions arising from the Company's sales of auction-rate securities, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. The Company faces a number of civil actions relating to its sales of auction-rate securities, including a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that seeks unspecified damages, and individual arbitrations and lawsuits in various forums brought by institutional and individual investors that, together, seek damages totaling more than $200 million relating to the Firm's sales of auction-rate securities. One action is brought by an issuer of auction-rate securities. The actions generally allege that the Company and other firms manipulated the market for auction-rate securities by placing bids at auctions that affected these securities' clearing rates or otherwise supported the auctions without properly disclosing these activities. Some actions also allege that the Firm misrepresented that auction-rate securities were short-term instruments. The Firm has filed motions to dismiss each of the actions, which are being coordinated before the Southern District. These motions are currently pending. JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Decision on Appeal in N.Y. Suits Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co., is awaiting a ruling on appeals from the dismissal of two putative class actions alleging collusion in auction-rate securities market, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. The Company was named in two putative antitrust class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The actions allege that the Company, along with numerous other financial institution defendants, colluded to maintain and stabilize the auction-rate securities market and then to withdraw their support for the auction-rate securities market. In January 2010, the District Court dismissed both actions. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the two appeals. That appeal is currently pending. KV PHARMA: 8th Cir. Revives Class Action Over Adulterated Drugs --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Perlow at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit revived a potential class action that accuses the makers of a hypertension drug of failing to meet standards set by the Food and Drug Administration. In the wake of a March 2009 complaint by the FDA against KV Pharmaceutical and its subsidiaries, Ethex and Ther-Rx, for defectively manufacturing the hypertension drug Metoprolol Succinate ER, Rhode Island resident Allen Lefaivre filed suit against the drugmakers for breach of warranty and violations of the Missouri Merchantability Practices Act. KV moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that Mr. Lefaivre's claims were preempted by federal law, and that government agencies have sole authority to enforce those standards. A Missouri federal judge agreed, but the St. Louis-based federal appeals panel reversed that decision on March 3. In its settlement agreement with the FDA, KV admitted to selling "adulterated" drugs, acknowledging that it had not used proper quality control procedures when manufacturing Metoprolol Succinate. KV also agreed to destroy the remaining stock of "adulterated" drugs and issued a recall for all stocks of the medication sold to retailers between May 2008 and February 2009. The appellate court's ruling that this recall notice only affected products "at the retail level." "A retail-level recall instructs all retailers that had purchased the medication to return all unsold product to KV," Judge Lavenski Smith wrote for the court. "The consent decree did not require KV to distribute its recall notice to individual purchasers of the medication, and it did not do so." The three-judge panel found that Congress did not intend give the FDA exclusive drug-safety oversight. "In keeping with Congress' decision not to pre-empt common-law tort suits, it appears that the FDA traditionally regarded state law as a complementary form of drug regulation," the opinion states. "The FDA has limited resources to monitor the 11,000 drugs on the market, and manufacturers have superior access to information about their drugs, especially in the postmarketing phase as new risks emerge. Congress adopted the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) so that state law could complement FDA regulation, Mr. Smith wrote. "State tort suits uncover unknown drug hazards and provide incentives for drug manufacturers to disclose safety risks promptly," the decision states. "They also serve a distinct compensatory function that may motivate injured persons to come forward with information. "Failure-to-warn actions, in particular, lend force to the FDCA's premise that manufacturers, not the FDA, bear primary responsibility for their drug labeling at all times," Judge Smith continued. "Thus, the FDA long maintained that state law offers an additional, and important, layer of consumer protection that complements FDA regulation." A copy of the Opinion in Lefaivre v. KV Pharmaceutical Company, et al., No. 10-1326 (8th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/f3T3R1 LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Suit Over Vacation Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lexmark International, Inc., is still defending itself against a class action lawsuit filed by a former employee over its vacation policies, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010. On August 31, 2005, former Company employee Ron Molina filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles under a California employment statute which in effect prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued. This statute has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or lose" vacation policies. The class is comprised of less than 200 current and former California employees of the Company. The trial was bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. On May 1, 2009, the trial court Judge brought the liability phase to a conclusion with a ruling that the Company's vacation and personal choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated California law. In a Statement of Decision, received by the Company on August 27, 2010, the trial court Judge awarded the class members approximately $8.3 million in damages which included waiting time penalties and interest but did not include post judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of Appeals on September 30, 2010. On November 17, 2010, the trial court judge partially granted the Company's motion for a new trial solely as to the argument that current employees are not entitled to any damages. The trial court judge vacated the original damage award and ordered further trial proceedings to determine the amount of previously-awarded damages that were attributable to current employees. The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is probable. The range of potential loss related to this matter is subject to a high degree of estimation. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, if the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. The Company has reserved a total of $1.8 million including attorney fees for estimated damages in the matter. The amount recorded represents an estimate at the minimum amount of the range. At the high end of the range, the class has sought approximately $16.7 million, the highest forfeiture amount asserted by the class' expert based on an assumption that none of the California employees ever used any of their accrued vacation or personal choice days and this $16.7 million amount does not include post judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees which also may be assessed against the Company. LIFE PARTNERS: Sued Over Fraudulent Life Expectancy Estimates ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal RICO class action claims Life Partners reaped "millions in illicit profits" in the secondary market in life settlements, through its "nefarious organization composed of life settlement brokers, agents, and a single corrupt doctor to fraudulently provide life settlement purchasers with grossly understated life expectancy estimates." A copy of the Complaint in Rice, et al. v. Life Partners, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-0390 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/08/LifePart.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 330-7149 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com - and - Kim E. Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 500 5th Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 696-3730 - and - Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. Paul S. Balanon, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 MILESTONE AV: Recalls 2,500 Power Conditioners/Surge Protectors --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Milestone AV Technologies LLC, of Savage, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,500 low-profile power conditioners/ surge protectors. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. Improper grounding of the case and inadequate insulation for the circuit breaker poses an electrical shock hazard to consumers. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves all Sanus Elements model ELM205 low-profile power conditioners or surge protectors. SANUS ELEMENTS is printed on the front of the unit and the model number is printed near the UL logo on the back. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Independent home theater dealers from June 2009 through December 2010 for about $90. Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact Milestone for a replacement product or refund. For additional information, contact Milestone toll-free at (877) 894-6280 between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday and between 10:30 a.m. and 7 p.m., Central Time, Saturday and Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.milestone.com/recall/ NEW MEXICO GAS: Residents in Gas Shut-Off Suit Seek More Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- KOAT Albuquerque reports that Attorney Michael Ross, who is representing Taos residents in a class action lawsuit filed against the New Mexico Gas Company, said his clients are demanding that the company pay three times the damages suffered by customers during February's gas shut-off. According to the lawsuit, the company shut off the gas service of about 32,000 customers, and some of the poorest people in the state were freezing. "At a very basic level, people were freezing," Mr. Ross said. Five days into the gas shut-off, people in Taos and Espanola still didn't have any natural gas, and some residents set their homes on fire trying to keep warm with Kiva fireplaces. "They missed work, had to scramble for heaters and had to stand in line at Walmart for electric blankets. It was a very trying time in these communities," Mr. Ross said. The gas company said it has set up a $1 million relief fund to help those affected by the shut-off. A spokesperson for the gas company said this lawsuit is a separate issue and will not affected the relief fund. The lawsuit said the relief fund wouldn't even be enough to compensate the thousands of customers and wants the company to pay three times the actual damage suffered. Ross said he is still looking to find more people to join this class action lawsuit. NISOURCE INC: Pays $2.7MM in 2011 for "Tawney" Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- NiSource Inc. has contributed $2.7 million this year as part of the settlement of the class action lawsuit, Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. The Plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, filed a lawsuit in early 2003 in the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County, West Virginia against CNR alleging that CNR underpaid royalties on gas produced on their land by improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair value for the gas. Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of post-production charges. In December 2004, the Trial Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to add NiSource and Columbia as Defendants. The Trial Court later certified the case as a class action that includes any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying within the boundary of the state of West Virginia. Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remained obligated to manage this litigation and was responsible for the majority of any damages awarded to Plaintiffs. On January 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict against all Defendants in the amount of $404.3 million inclusive of both compensatory and punitive damages; Defendants subsequently filed their Petition for Appeal, which was later amended, with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which refused the petition on May 22, 2008. On August 22, 2008, Defendants filed Petitions to the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. Given the Appeals Court's earlier refusal of the appeal, NiSource adjusted its reserve in the second quarter of 2008 to reflect the portion of the Trial Court judgment for which NiSource would be responsible, inclusive of interest. This amount was included in "Legal and environmental reserves," on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2008. On October 24, 2008, the Trial Court preliminarily approved a Settlement Agreement with a total settlement amount of $380 million. The settlement received final approval by the Trial Court on November 22, 2008. NiSource's share of the settlement liability is up to $338.8 million. NiSource complied with its obligations under the Settlement Agreement to fund $85.5 million in the qualified settlement fund by January 13, 2009. Additionally, NiSource provided a letter of credit on January 13, 2009 in the amount of $254 million and thereby complied with its obligation to secure the unpaid portion of the settlement, which was terminated on December 29, 2010. The Trial Court entered its Order discharging the judgment on January 20, 2009 and is supervising the administration of the settlement proceeds. As of December 31, 2010, NiSource has contributed a total of $330.5 million into the qualified settlement fund, $277.3 million of which was contributed prior to December 31, 2009. As of December 31, 2010, $8.3 million of the maximum settlement liability has not been paid. NiSource has since contributed an additional $2.7 million in 2011. NiSource will be required to make additional payments, pursuant to the settlement, upon notice from the Class Administrator. NISOURCE INC: Sixth Circuit Affirms Settlement of Kentucky Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Sixth Circuit has affirmed a lower court's decision approving a settlement and dismissing lawsuits against NiSource Inc., according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On February 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed the Thacker case, a purported class action alleging that Chesapeake has failed to pay royalty owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of their oil and gas leases covering real property located within the state of Kentucky. Columbia has assumed the defense of Chesapeake in this matter pursuant to the provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement dated July 3, 2003, among Columbia, NiSource, and Triana Energy Holding, Inc., Chesapeake's predecessor in interest. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on March 19, 2007, which, among other things, added NiSource and Columbia as Defendants. On March 31, 2008, the Court denied a Motion by Defendants to Dismiss and on June 3, 2008, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all persons entitled to payment of royalty by Chesapeake under leases operated by Chesapeake at any point after February 5, 1992, on real property in Kentucky. In June 2009, the parties to the Thacker litigation presented a Settlement Agreement to the Court for preliminary approval. The court granted the Motion for Preliminary approval and held a fairness hearing on November 10, 2009. On March 3, 2010 the Court granted final approval of the settlement and on March 31, 2010 Poplar Creek filed a notice of appeal of that approval with the Sixth Circuit. On February 17, 2011, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's approval of the settlement. On October 9, 2008, Chesapeake tendered the Poplar Creek case to Columbia and Columbia conditionally assumed the defense of this matter pursuant to the provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement. Poplar Creek also purports to be a class action covering royalty owners in the state of Kentucky and alleges that Chesapeake has improperly deducted costs from the royalty payments; thus there is some overlap of parties and issues between the Poplar Creek and Thacker cases. Chesapeake filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in December 2008, which was granted on July 2, 2009. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on December 9, 2010 for both the Thacker and Poplar Creek cases. On February 17, 2011, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: To Appeal Ruling in Dividend Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Vielmetti, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. breached its contracts with thousands of annuity holders when it unilaterally changed how dividends were paid on pre-1985 annuities, a judge has found. A Northwestern Mutual spokeswoman called the ruling shocking and said the company will appeal. In a 97-page decision, Reserve Judge Dennis Flynn, of Racine, found the Milwaukee-based financial giant also breached its fiduciary duty, and duties of good faith, fair dealing and loyalty during the switch. "Intentional and repeated concealment of wrongdoing over a period of a quarter century took place," Judge Flynn wrote. Jean Towell, a spokeswoman for Northwestern Mutual, said the company is extremely disappointed in the judge's ruling and shocked by his conclusions. She said the company will appeal. "Twenty-five years after the fact, the court is willing to second- guess company execs and insurance regulators," Ms. Towell said. "Northwestern Mutual stands strongly behind its decision-making when it comes to dividends," she said. "They were made in made in good faith for good reasons for the benefit of all our policy holders." The decision followed a non-jury trial he heard in Milwaukee in November. Judge Flynn said he retained jurisdiction of the complicated case for "further and supplemental relief allowed as necessary and proper." The class-action lawsuit from people who bought the annuities before 1985 contends the change deprived them of potentially millions of dollars in dividends from Northwestern Mutual's general portfolio over the past 25 years and into the future. While annuity holders continued to receive what were called dividends, the lawsuit contends they were merely interest payments from short-term bonds into which the company had switched the annuity assets. The lengthy order recapped much of the evidence from the trial, which featured 21 witnesses and more than 500 exhibits. Judge Flynn found testimony of the defense experts wanting, and found retired Northwestern Mutual CEO Ed Zore "not credible." "His answer to the conundrums faced by Northwestern Mutual was to tell lies and manufacture reality," Judge Flynn wrote. OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal From Facebook Beacon Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- OverStock.com Inc. continues to defend itself from an appeal in a "Facebook Beacon" class action complaint in California, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On August 12, 2008, the Company, along with seven other defendants, were sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by Sean Lane, and 17 other individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a class action suit, alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law. The complaint relates to the Company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and provided to the defendants by Facebook, Inc. Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data among their Facebook friends. The parties extended by agreement the time for defendants' answer, including the Company's answer, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated settlement to the court for approval, which would resolve the case without requirement of financial contribution from the Company. On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the court accepted the proposed settlement. Various parties objecting to the settlement have appealed and their appeal is now pending. OverStock.com is an online retailer offering discount brand name, non-brand name and closeout merchandise, including bed-and-bath goods, home d�cor, kitchenware, furniture, watches and jewelry, apparel, electronics and computers, sporting goods, and designer accessories, among other products. OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Amended "Hines" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- OverStock.com Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action complaint filed by Cynthia Hines, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On March 10, 2009, the Company was sued in a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws. The Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to properly disclose its returns policy to her and that the Company improperly imposed a "restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner. The Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that its agreement with its customers requires all such actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah. Alternatively, the Company asked that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may be compelled in that district. On September 8, 2009, the motion to dismiss or transfer was denied, the court stating that the Company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to arbitrate disputes in Utah. On October 8, 2009, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of the court's ruling. The appeal was denied. On December 31, 2010, Hines filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of contract claims and added claims for breach of Utah's consumer protection statute and various other state consumer protection statutes. The amended complaint also asks for an injunction. The suit is in discovery, and the Company intends to vigorously defend the action. OverStock.com is an online retailer offering discount brand name, non-brand name and closeout merchandise, including bed-and-bath goods, home d�cor, kitchenware, furniture, watches and jewelry, apparel, electronics and computers, sporting goods, and designer accessories, among other products. PEABODY ENERGY: Dismissal of Mississippi Class Suit Now Final ------------------------------------------------------------- The dismissal of the class action lawsuit filed by residents along the Mississippi Gulf coast against Peabody Energy Corporation is now final after the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition of mandamus, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In April 2006, residents and owners of land and property along the Mississippi Gulf coast filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi against more than 45 oil, chemical, utility and coal companies, including the Company. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants' greenhouse gas emissions "were a proximate and direct cause of the increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina," and sought damages based on several legal theories. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. In August 2007, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the political question doctrine and for lack of standing. In October 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) reversed in part the decision of the trial court, holding that the plaintiffs had standing to assert their public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence claims. The court held that plaintiffs did not satisfy the prudential standing requirement for their unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims and dismissed those claims and ordered that the case be remanded to the district court for further proceedings. In March 2010, the Fifth Circuit vacated the panel opinion and ordered a hearing en banc before the full Fifth Circuit to consider plaintiffs' appeal. After the en banc court was properly constituted, a recusal by one of the judges resulted in the en banc court losing its quorum. On May 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an order indicating that the court had no authority to reinstate the panel decision and directing the clerk to dismiss the appeal. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' Petition for Mandamus. As a result, the trial court's dismissal of the case is final. PROGRESS ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling of Appeal in Florida Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Progress Energy, Inc. is still awaiting a ruling of an appeal from an order dismissing a Florida Nuclear Cost Recovery lawsuit, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On February 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc., in state circuit court in Sumter County, Fla., alleging that the Florida nuclear cost-recovery statute (Section 366.93, Florida Statutes) violates the Florida Constitution, and seeking a refund of all monies collected by PEF pursuant to that statute with interest. The complaint also requests that the court grant class action status to the plaintiffs. On April 6, 2010, PEF filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The trial judge issued an order on May 3, 2010, dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 1, 2010. PEF believes the lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 12, 2010. On October 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial court's order dismissing the complaint. Initial and reply briefs have been filed by the appellants and PEF. The appellants filed their response brief on January 25, 2011.the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. PROGRESS ENERGY: Defends Class Suits Over Proposed Duke Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Progress Energy, Inc., is defending itself against class action lawsuit over its proposed merger with Duke Energy Corporation, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On January 8, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Progress Energy will be acquired by Duke Energy in a stock-for-stock transaction (the Merger) and continue as a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy. Progress Energy shareholders have filed class action lawsuits in the state and federal courts in North Carolina against Progress Energy and each of the members of Progress Energy's board of directors. The lawsuits seek to prohibit the Merger and, in some cases, seek damages in the event that the Merger is completed. Progress Energy intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this matter. REHABCARE GROUP: Being Sold to Kindred for Too Little, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that RehabCare officers breached their duty to shareholders by selling the company too cheaply to Kindred Healthcare, shareholders say. Kindred's acquisition of RehabCare "serves no legitimate purpose for RehabCare but rather is an attempt by defendants to aggrandize their own financial interests," according to the class action in St. Louis County Court. Named plaintiff Alfred Kowalewski says RehabCare's stock rose rapidly, from $12.45 a share on March 3, 2009 until it peaked at $34.88 a share on Jan. 19, 2010. The stock leveled off and was selling at $25.47 a share on Feb. 7, 2011, the day before the announcement of the acquisition. The $1.3 billion buyout offer was $26 a share, plus 0.471 Kindred shares per RehabCare share. "While the consideration offered to RehabCare's public stockholders represents a 37.55% premium to the closing share price on the day prior to announcement, this does not reflect the true value of the company or its prospects for future growth," the complaint states. "In contrast, Kindred and the individual defendants stand to reap substantial benefits from the proposed transaction. On Feb. 7, 2011, on the day before the announcement of the proposed transaction, the compensation committee of the board approved a grant of 46,393 shares of restricted stock worth a total of $1.25 million to defendant [John] Short, the president and CEO of RehabCare. . . . Short's restricted shares will vest immediately upon the consummation of the proposed transaction. These restricted shares are in addition to at least $11 million in potential change-in-control payments to Short." The class wants the acquisition blocked, and a better deal. RehabCare, Kindred and eight RehabCare officers are named as defendants. A copy of the Complaint in Kowalewski v. Rich, et al., Case No. _____ (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/08/RehabCare.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Leventhal, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: dleventhal@faruqilaw.com - and - Jeffrey R. Schmitt, Esq. James M. Heffner, Esq. DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C. 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63205 Telephone: (314) 726-1000 E-mail: jschmitt@dmfirm.com jheffner@dmfirm.com SLM CORP: Awaits Final Court Approval of "Arthur" Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- SLM Corporation is awaiting final court approval of its settlement of a class action styled, Mark A. Arthur et al. v. SLM Corporation, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On February 2, 2010, a putative class action suit was filed by a borrower in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Mark A. Arthur et al. v. SLM Corporation). The suit complains that the Company allegedly contacted "tens of thousands" of consumers on their cellular telephones via autodialer without their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. Each violation under the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory damages ($1,500 if a willful violation is shown). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, damages for willful violations, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. On April 5, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint changing the defendant from SLM Corporation to Sallie Mae, Inc. The parties in this matter have reached a tentative settlement which is subject to court approval and other conditions. On September 14, 2010, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington agreed to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement. The Company says it has vigorously denied all claims asserted against it, but agreed to the settlement to avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation. If the settlement receives final approval from the Court, settlement awards will be made to eligible class members on a claims-made basis from a settlement fund of $19.5 million, and class members may opt out of certain calls to their cellular telephones. On January 21, 2011, and February 7, 2011, the Company filed submissions with the Court to advise that approximately 1.76 million individuals had been omitted from the original notice list for a total of approximately 6.6 million class members. In response, Class Counsel asked the Company to contribute additional unspecified amounts to the settlement fund. On February 10, 2011, the Court granted a Consented Motion to Stay Implementation of Settlement and Certain Deadlines. The Court ordered Class Counsel to file a status report on March 18, 2011. On February 10, 2011, Judith Harper filed a Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff, which the Court terminated on February 11, 2011 based upon the Court's February 10, 2011 Stay. On February 9, 2011, Ms. Harper filed a similar Class Action Complaint regarding the TCPA against Arrow Financial Services, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On February 22, 2011, Arrow Financial Services, LLC filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in the Harper case. That Motion is pending. SLM CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- SLM Corporation continues to defend itself against a consolidated securities class action filed by parties who bought the Company's common stock, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On January 31, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This case and other actions arising out of the same circumstances and alleged acts have been consolidated and are now identified as In Re SLM Corporation Securities Litigation. The case purports to be brought on behalf of those who acquired the Company's common stock between January 18, 2007 and January 23, 2008. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements and that the statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price for the Company's securities. The complaint alleges that Defendants caused the Company's results for year-end 2006 and for the first quarter of 2007 to be materially misstated because the Company failed to adequately provide for loan losses, which overstated the Company's net income, and that the Company failed to adequately disclose allegedly known trends and uncertainties with respect to the Company's non-traditional loan portfolio. On September 24, 2010, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss Mr. Albert Lord and the Company but dismissed Mr. C.E. Andrews as a defendant in the action. The matter is now in the discovery phase. Lead Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. At this time the Company does not believe it is possible to estimate a range of exposure. SPRINT NEXTEL: "Unlimited Data" Plan Not Unlimited, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Sprint Nextel cheats customers by tacking on a $10 monthly "premium data add-on" after selling them a supposedly "unlimited data" plan. A copy of the Complaint in Wilkerson v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01040 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/08/SprintCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Reginald Terrell, Esq. THE TERRELL LAW GROUP P. O Box 13315 Oakland, CA 94661 Telephone: (510) 237-9700 E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com - and - Donald Amamgbo, Esq. AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES 6167 Bristol Parkway, #325 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: 310-337-1134 E-mail: donald@amamgbolaw.com - and - Sydney J. Hall, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SYDNEY J. HALL 1308 Bayshore Highway, Suite 220 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 342-1830 SUNJOY INDUSTRIES: Recalls 2,400 Steel Outdoor Fireplaces --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Sunjoy Industries Group Limited, of Steubenville, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about 20,000 Freestanding Steel Outdoor Fireplaces in the United States and 400 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The decorative bronze powder coat finish on the fireplace chimney can ignite during use, posing a fire hazard to consumers. Sunjoy has received 14 reports of the chimney's decorative powder coat finish catching fire, resulting in one report of melted siding. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves "Garden Treasures Living" steel outdoor fireplaces with a bronze finish chimney and slate colored accents. The wood burning fireplace is approximately 24 inches deep by 35 inches wide and 57 inches tall, has two glass doors and a tile back inside. Item number 0027705 and model number L-OF082PST-3 are printed on the front page of the product's instruction manual. No other "Garden Treasures Living" brand outdoor fireplaces are included in this recall. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11157.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Lowe's retail stores nationwide from March 2010 through November 2010 for about $300. Consumers should immediately stop using the fireplace and contact Sunjoy to obtain a free replacement chimney and chimney cap. For additional information, contact Sunjoy toll-free at (877) 343-5651 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://ww.sunjoydirect.com/fireplacerecall.htm/ Consumers can also email the firm at fireplacerecall@sunjoydirect.com TRANSOCEAN LTD: Securities Suits Remain Pending in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Three securities class action lawsuits filed against Transocean Ltd. remain pending in New York, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. The federal securities law class actions, currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, name the Company and certain of its officers and directors as defendants. Two of these actions generally allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Macondo well incident. The plaintiffs are generally seeking awards of unspecified economic damages, including damages resulting from the decline in the Company's stock price after the Macondo well incident. The third action was filed by a former GlobalSantaFe shareholder, alleging that the proxy statement related to the Company's shareholder meeting in connection with its merger with GlobalSantaFe violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff claims that GlobalSantaFe shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and seeks rescission and compensatory damages. Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. Specializing in technically demanding sectors of the offshore drilling business with a particular focus on deepwater and harsh environment drilling services, the Company contracts its drilling rigs, related equipment and work crews predominantly on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. TREE.COM INC: Appeal in "Carson" Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------- An appeal filed in the putative class action entitled Sylvia Carson v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-247 (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D.N.C.), remains pending, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. The Company named defendant in eight putative class actions arising out of the Company's April 21, 2008 announcement that unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information relating to its customers: * Constance Spinozzi v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-229 (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D.N.C.); * Sylvia Carson v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-247 (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D.N.C.); * Mitchell v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 08-303-RJC (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. N.C.); * Miller v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 08cv2300 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill.); * Marvin Garcia v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 08 Civ. 4551 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y.); * Amy Bercaw v. LendingTree, LLC, No. SACV08-660 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.); * Shaver v. LendingTree, LLC, et al., SACV08-755 (U.S. Dist. Ct. C.D. Cal.); and * Bradley v. LendingTree, LLC, et al., SACV08-755 (U.S. Dist. Ct. C.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs allege that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and has violated FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports. Plaintiffs also assert claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy and misappropriation of confidential information. Plaintiffs purport to represent all LendingTree customers affected by the information security breach, and seek damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The cases were transferred for consistent pre-trial treatment into In re LendingTree, LLC Customer Data Security Breach Litigation in the Western District of NC Charlotte Division, and the court ordered each case to individual arbitration. The Carson case was arbitrated on an individual (non-class) basis and a decision was issued in favor of LendingTree in April 2010. Following this decision, certain of the Plaintiffs in the Bercaw case withdrew their filings. Each of the other cases was dismissed on July 8, 2010. Plaintiff in the Carson case filed an appeal on January 13, 2011. Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business) and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business). The Lending Business consists of online networks, principally LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which match consumers with lenders and loan brokers. In addition, the Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds various types of residential real estate loans under two brand names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name LendingTree Settlement Services. The Real Estate Business consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand name RealEstate.com, REALTORS. TREMONT PARTNERS: Removes "Lakeview" Civil Action to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lakeview Investments, LP, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. Robert Schulman, et al., Case No. CIV1006488 (Calif. Super. Ct., Marin Cty.), was filed on December 10, 2010. The case arises out of the massive fraud committed by Bernard L. Madoff and the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Lakeview alleges that Tremont Partners, Inc., Tremont Group Holdings, Inc., and other defendants, among other things: (i) made fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions in the funds' offering materials, (ii) failed to conduct adequate due diligence on Mr. Madoff before investing assets of the funds with BMIS, (iii) did not monitor the funds' investment performance adequately, and (iv) ignored "red flags" that purportedly should have made defendants reluctant to invest with Mr. Madoff, as a result of which plaintiff and other class members were harmed. The plaintiff, a Delaware limited partnership based in California, alleges that it invested approximately $23,950,000 in defendant Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund, L.P., and $1,200,000 in defendant Rye Select Broad Market Fund, L.P. Tremont Partners, Inc., an investment adviser established in 1984 and a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Tremont Group Holdings, Inc., is the general partner of the XL Fund and the Market Fund -- Partnerships. Tremont Partners is deemed to have custody over the cash and securities comprising the assets of the Partnerships attributable to the partners' respective ownership interests in the Partnerships. Tremont Holdings is a holding company that manages approximately $6 billion in assets through its various hedge fund products and multi-manager portfolios. Defendant Robert Schulman was Chairman of Tremont Holdings' Board of Directors from 2004 until 2008 and is identified by the Partnerships' PPMs (Private Placement Memorandum) as one of the principal decision makers for Tremont Partners in its role as General Partner to the Parnerships. On the basis that the appropriate district court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because the matter raised a federal jurisdiction under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C., Section 78bb et seq., defendants Tremont Partners, Inc., Tremont Group Holdings, Inc., Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Oppenheimer Acquisition Corp., Inc., Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund, L.P., Rye Select Broad Market Fund, L.P f/k/a American Masters Broad Market Fund, L.P., Robert Schulman, James V. Mitchell, Harry Hodges, Darren Johnston, on March 4, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-01025 to the proceeding. Defendants Stuart Pologe and Patrick Kelly, who are listed as defendants in plaintiff Lakeview Investment, LP's Complaint, have not yet been served. Defendants Pologe and Kelly consent to the removal of this action, but do not waive any defenses related to the lack of service and do not accept service by their consent to removal. The Complaint also lists MassMutual Life Insurance Company as a defendant. The defendants state that no such entity exists. As such, MassMutual Life Insurance Company is not included among the list of defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq. Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq. ROBBINS UMEDA, LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone; (619) 525-3990 Defendants Tremont Partners, Inc., Tremont Group Holdings Inc., Robert Schulman, James V. Mitchell, Harry Hodges, and Darren Johnston are represented by: Eric S. Waxman, Esq. Thomas E. Haroldson, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144 Telephone: (213) 687-5000 E-mail: eric.waxman@skadden.com Defendant Oppenheimer Acquisition Corp. is represented by: Matthew L. Larrabee, Esq. DECHERT LLP One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111-3513 Telephone: (415) 262-4500 E-mail: matthew.larrabee@dechert.com Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company is represented by: Susan Hoffman, Esq. BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3106 Telephone: (213) 680-6400 E-mail: susan.hoffman@bingham.com Rye Select Broad Market Prime Fund, L.P. f/k/a Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund, L.P., Rye Select Broad Market Fund, L.P. f/k/a American Masters Broad Market Fund, L.P., are represented by: Kirsten Hicks Spira, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90067-5052 Telephone: (310) 734-3200 E-mail: kspira@steptoe.com UNITED ONLINE: "Michaels" Suit Remains Pending in Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ United Online, Inc., continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action complaint over dating services contracts currently pending in Washington, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On October 30, 2008, Anthony Michaels filed a purported class action complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., now known as Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging causes of action for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq. On December 19, 2008, Xavier Vasquez filed a purported class action complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online in Superior Court of Washington, Kings County, alleging causes of action for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment and violation of California Civil Code section 1694, dealing with dating services contracts. In both actions, the plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages. On April 30, 2009, the United States District Court of the Western District of Washington consolidated the Michaels and the Vasquez actions and designated the Michaels action as the lead case. On March 12, 2010, the parties entered into a comprehensive class action settlement agreement. On December 16, 2010, the court conducted a final approval hearing on the settlement. On February 22, 2011, the court issued an Order formally denying final approval of the settlement. Discovery has not recommenced and no trial date has been set. United Online is a provider of consumer products and services over the Internet through a number of brands including FTD, Interflora, Memory Lane, Classmates, StayFriends, NetZero, and MyPoints. UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Price-Fixing Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc., is still defending itself against a class action alleging price-fixing activities, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in this case. At this time, the Company has not determined the amount of any liability that may result from these matters or whether such liability, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Barber Auto Sales Suit in Alabama -------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc., said in a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2011, that it continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit in Alabama filed by Barber Auto Sales. In Barber Auto Sales v. UPS, which a federal court in Alabama certified as a class action in September 2009, the plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claim arising from UPS's assessment of shipping charge corrections when UPS determines that the "dimensional weight" of packages is greater than reported by the shipper. The Company has denied any liability with respect to these claims and intend to vigorously defend itself in this case. At this time, the Company has not determined the amount of any liability that may result from this matter or whether such liability, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. UNITED STATES: May Face Class Suit Over Guatamela Syphilis Study ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Pacenti, writing for Law.com, reports that a class action lawsuit on behalf of about 700 Guatemalans who were subjected to syphilis experiments by American doctors in the 1940s will be filed against the U.S. government in three days unless reparations of some kind are made to their families, plaintiffs attorneys said on March 8. The Obama administration apologized last October for U.S. government doctors infecting Guatemalans with the syphilis virus from 1946 to 1948 to study how the sexually transmitted disease is passed and whether penicillin treatment was effective. The experiments came to light in 2009 through research by historian Susan Reverby, a professor of women and gender studies at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Because of the apology, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Conrad & Scherer and Washington, D.C.-based Parker Wakeman Alonso notified Attorney General Eric Holder that he had until today, March 11, to offer a way to settle claims before the 33-page lawsuit is filed in federal court. The draft complaint names as class representatives heirs of a Guatemalan experiment victim as well as soldiers who were given the virus without their consent. "What we are doing is a bit unconventional," said Piper Hendricks, a Conrad & Scherer associate in Washington. "Rather than hit them with a lawsuit right away, we want to see if there is an agreement that can be reached prior to filing." Mr. Hendricks said this is not an attempt at a money grab, and there are variety of solutions that can arise from the threat of litigation, including a program to provide medical treatment or information on STDs in Guatemala. "When no amount of money can make anybody whole, that's when you've got to get creative," she said. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment on the potential lawsuit but said, "Once it is filed, we will review the complaint and make a determination as to how the United States will respond in court." DOCTOR WITH A PAST The doctor who led the Guatemalan experiments was John C. Cutler, who also helped coordinate the infamous Tuskegee, Alabama, study where 600 black men with syphilis were left untreated for decades starting in 1932 to follow the course of the treatable disease. In Guatemala, Cutler contacted orphanages, prisons and mental hospitals and cajoled them with medical supplies to allow the experiments, according to the plaintiffs lawyers. Doctors were interested in how the disease was transmitted. One method was to have an infected prostitute sleep with prisoners, lawyers said. "This was not just a shot in the arm," Mr. Hendricks said. "The ugliest thing about this is that they targeted people who were the most defenseless." Cutler moved his experiments to Guatemala because there would not be the same level of oversight as in the U.S., the threatened lawsuit stated. Unlike the Tuskegee study, which involved people already infected with syphilis, Guatemalans were intentionally exposed to the disease. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius apologized last October to Guatemala, the survivors and their descendants, calling the experiments "clearly unethical." Additionally disturbing was that the experiments in Guatemala were performed at the same time as the Nuremberg trials, which documented atrocities done by the Nazis in the name of medical science during World War II, Mr. Hendricks said. "It's very disturbing. It's not just a wrong recognized in hindsight," she said. "They knew at the time that you cannot engage in nonconsensual human experimentation like this." URS CORP: Continues Defense in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- URS Corporation continues to defend itself in a class suit arising from alleged negligence in their design, construction and maintenance of the New Orleans levees, which resulted to personal injury damages during the surge of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International, Inc., an Ohio company, subsequently renamed URS Energy & Construction, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary acquired by the Company on November 15, 2007, performed demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal in New Orleans, Louisiana. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The storm surge created by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city. Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant. Other defendants include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases, including the WGI Ohio cases, have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their design, construction and maintenance of the New Orleans levees. The plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who claim to have incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The allegation against the Company is that the work it performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall and caused and contributed to breaches and flooding. The plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and demand attorneys' fees and costs. WGI Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane Katrina. WGI Ohio performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government and has pursued dismissal from the lawsuits on a motion for summary judgment on the basis that government contractors are immune from liability. On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the Company performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government and are therefore immune from liability, which was appealed by a number of the plaintiffs on April 27, 2009 to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further litigation. WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously; however, the Company cannot provide assurance that it will be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss and the resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time, the Company said. VERISK ANALYTICS: Awaits Court Approval of "Schafer" Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a settlement agreement and release executed by all parties in the putative class action lawsuit entitled Schafer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et al., according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. The putative class action was filed by or on behalf of groups of Louisiana insurance policyholders who claim, among other things, that certain insurers who used products and price information supplied by the Company's Xactware subsidiary (and those of another provider) did not fully compensate policyholders for property damage covered under their insurance policies. The plaintiffs seek to recover compensation for their damages in an amount equal to the difference between the amount paid by the defendants and the fair market repair/restoration costs of their damaged property. The putative class action was filed in March 2007 in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The complaint alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract, negligence, bad faith, and fraud. The court dismissed the antitrust claim as to both defendants and dismissed all claims against the Company other than fraud, which will proceed to the discovery phase along with the remaining claims against State Farm. Judge Duval denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a class with respect to the fraud and breach of contract claims on August 3, 2009 and the time to appeal that decision has expired. The matter now a single action was reassigned to Judge Africk. The plaintiffs agreed to settle the matter with the Company and State Farm and a Settlement Agreement and a Release was executed by all parties in June 2010. Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, and risk management. Using advanced technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data management, and many other fields. In the United States and around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people, property, and financial assets. VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Remains Administratively Closed --------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action entitled Mornay v. Travelers Ins. Co., et al., remains administratively closed pending completion of the appraisal process. The putative class action lawsuit was filed by or on behalf of groups of Louisiana insurance policyholders who claim, among other things, that certain insurers who used products and price information supplied by Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s Xactware subsidiary (and those of another provider) did not fully compensate policyholders for property damage covered under their insurance policies. The plaintiffs seek to recover compensation for their damages in an amount equal to the difference between the amount paid by the defendants and the fair market repair/restoration costs of their damaged property. The putative class action was filed in November 2007 in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The complaint alleged antitrust violations, breach of contract, negligence, bad faith, and fraud. As in the class action lawsuit entitled entitled Schafer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et al., the court dismissed the antitrust claim as to both defendants and dismissed all claims against the Company other than fraud. Judge Duval stayed all proceedings in the case pending an appraisal of the lead plaintiff's insurance claim. The matter has been re-assigned to Judge Barbier, who on September 11, 2009 issued an order administratively closing the matter pending completion of the appraisal process. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of or estimate the liability related to this matter. No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, and risk management. Using advanced technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data management, and many other fields. In the United States and around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people, property, and financial assets. VERISK ANALYTICS: Certiorari Petition Junked in "Taylor" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in class action lawsuit entitled Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom Corporation, et al., according to Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In March 2007, the Company's subsidiary, Insurance Information Exchange, or iiX, as well as other information providers and insurers in the State of Texas, were served with a summons and class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging violations of the Driver Privacy Protection Act, or the DPPA, entitled Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom Corporation, et al. Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose personal information is contained in any motor vehicle record maintained by the State of Texas and who have not provided express consent to the State of Texas for the distribution of their personal information for purposes not enumerated by the DPPA and whose personal information has been knowingly obtained and used by the defendants. The class complaint alleges that the defendants knowingly obtained personal information for a purpose not authorized by the DPPA and seeks liquidated damages in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars for each instance of a violation of the DPPA, punitive damages and the destruction of any illegally obtained personal information. The Court granted iiX's motion to dismiss the complaint based on failure to state a claim and for lack of standing. Oral arguments on the plaintiffs' appeal of that dismissal were held on November 4, 2009. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint on July 14, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on October 12, 2010, which was denied on January 10, 2011. Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, and risk management. Using advanced technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data management, and many other fields. In the United States and around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people, property, and financial assets. VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in "Cook" Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in a class action lawsuit entitled Janice Cook, et al. v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al., remains pending, according to Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In April 2010, Insurance Information Exchange, or iiX, a subsidiary of the Company, as well as other information providers in the State of Missouri were served with a summons and class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging violations of the Driver Privacy Protection Act, or the DPPA, entitled Janice Cook, et al. v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al. Plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose personal information is contained in any motor vehicle record maintained by the State of Missouri and who have not provided express consent to the State of Missouri for the distribution of their personal information for purposes not enumerated by the DPPA and whose personal information has been knowingly obtained and used by the defendants. The class complaint alleges that the defendants knowingly obtained personal information for a purpose not authorized by the DPPA and seeks liquidated damages in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars for each instance of a violation of the DDPA, punitive damages and the destruction of any illegally obtained personal information. The court granted iiX's motion to dismiss the complaint based on a failure to state a claim on November 19, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 17, 2010. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of or estimate the liability related to these matters. Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, and risk management. Using advanced technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data management, and many other fields. In the United States and around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people, property, and financial assets. VERISK ANALYTICS: Awaits Court Okay of "Gluzman" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Verisk Analytics, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of a settlement of the class action lawsuit entitled Renata Gluzman v. Interthinx, Inc., according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In September 2009, the Company's subsidiary, Interthinx, Inc., or Interthinx, was served with a putative class action entitled Renata Gluzman v. Interthinx, Inc. The plaintiff, a former Interthinx employee, filed the class action on August 13, 2009 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of all Interthinx information technology employees for unpaid overtime and missed meals and rest breaks, as well as various related claims claiming that the information technology employees were misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they were properly classified as non-exempt employees. The pleadings include, among other things, a violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 for unfair business practices, which allows plaintiffs to include as class members all information technology employees employed at Interthinx for four years prior to the date of filing the complaint. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the various statutes, restitution, interest costs, and attorney fees. On June 2, 2010, plaintiffs agreed to settle their claims with Interthinx. The court granted preliminary approval to the settlement on November 10, 2010 and scheduled the final approval hearing for February 23, 2011. Although no assurance can be given concerning the outcome of this matter, in the opinion of management the lawsuit is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations. Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government, and risk management. Using advanced technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data management, and many other fields. In the United States and around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people, property, and financial assets. VERIZON COMMS: Retirees' Pension Suit Get Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Federal Judge A. Joe Fish of the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, issued an order granting class certification for participants in Verizon's pension plans who were involuntarily transferred to Idearc's pension plans in November 2006. Idearc was a Verizon spin-off that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 and has since emerged from bankruptcy as SuperMedia Inc. The Feb. 28 order defines the class to include all former participants in Verizon's pension plans who were transferred into Idearc's pension plans in connection with a spin-off transaction that occurred in November, 2006 and who were retired or terminated from Verizon at the time of the spin-off. Also included in the class are the beneficiaries of such participants. The class is represented by Denver lawyer Curtis L. Kennedy and Dallas lawyer Robert Goodman, Jr. The plaintiffs in the original lawsuit had all been retired for at least 10 years and none had ever actually worked for Idearc/SuperMedia. Each was fully vested in a Verizon sponsored pension plan. The involuntary switch to the Idearc plans resulted in retiree welfare benefit reductions that were not experienced by retirees who remained in the Verizon sponsored plans. In the lawsuit, Philip A. Murphy Jr., et al vs. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al (Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-2262-G) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, the retirees have pending claims of ERISA violations including: * Breach of fiduciary duty for failure to comply with pension plan document rules; and * Various other ERISA violations justifying that the federal court order declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, and restore the retirees into Verizon's sponsored employee benefit plans. The retirees contend they should not have been treated like mere chattels and removed from Verizon's sponsored pension plans without their express permission. For more information, see the court filings posted at the retirees' Web site: http://is.gd/16pm72 "This is a necessary step in the efforts of the retirees to recover benefits they earned which were illegally taken from them," said C. William Jones, president of the Association of BellTel Retirees Inc. "Verizon improperly transferred thousands of its pensioners to a company that didn't even exist when they retired." VULCAN MATERIALS: Continues to Defend Florida Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vulcan Materials Company continues to defend itself in the antitrust litigation pending before a Florida court, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. The Company's subsidiary, Florida Rock Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuits were filed by several ready-mixed concrete producers and construction companies against a number of concrete and cement producers and importers in Florida. There are now two consolidated amended complaints: (1) on behalf of direct independent ready-mixed concrete producers, and (2) on behalf of indirect users of ready-mixed concrete. The other defendants include Cemex Corp., Prestige and Tarmac. The complaints allege various violations under the federal antitrust laws, including price fixing and market allocations. The Company has no reason to believe that Florida Rock is liable for any of the matters alleged in the complaint, and the Company intends to defend the case vigorously. Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida. VULCAN MATERIALS: "Addair" Suit Remains Pending in West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action Addair et al. v. Processing Company, LLC, et al., remains pending, according to Vulcan Materials Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. This is a purported class action case for medical monitoring and personal injury damages styled Addair et al. v. Processing Company, LLC, et al., pending in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs allege various personal injuries from exposure to perc used in coal sink labs. The perc manufacturing defendants, including Vulcan, have filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court has yet to rule on the motion but in the interim has stayed the litigation. As such, there has been no activity on this matter pending the Court's ruling. Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida. W. ROSS: Ministry Takes Student Abuse Allegations "Seriously" ------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Ball, writing for Brantford Expositor, reports that the Ontario Ministry of Education says it can't comment on a proposed multi-million dollar class action lawsuit filed against the province alleging that students who attended W. Ross MacDonald School in the 1950s and 1960s were abused by staff. "The safety of our students is of the utmost importance to this government and we take these allegations very seriously," Gary Wheeler, a ministry spokesman said. "We are aware of the proposed class action. As this matter may be before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment." The Brant Avenue school is operated by the provincial schools branch of the Ministry of Education. The lawsuit has been initiated by a former student, Robert Seed, of Thunder Bay, who began attending the school and living in residence in 1954 when he was seven. He left in 1965. Mr. Seed is seeking $200 million in damages for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty and $25 million in punitive damages. He is being represented by Koskie Minsky LLP, of Toronto, which provided a copy of the statement of claim to The Expositor. The legal action started on Feb. 22 and is in a preliminary stage. It is proposed only in the sense that the court has not yet certified the action as a class proceeding, a requirement for every class action in Ontario, Koskie Minsky said in an e-mail reply. The next major step in the action would be a motion for certification where the court would consider whether the action is appropriate to proceed as a class action. Factors that would be considered by the court include whether the claims raise issues that are common among the class members and if it is the preferable procedure for the resolution of those issues. The allegations have not been proved in court. In his statement of claim, Seed alleges "every aspect of students' lives was dictated, controlled and provided for by the Crown" and "students at Ross Macdonald had no control over any aspect of their lives." More specifically, Mr. Seed alleges that "students were frequently punished for minor or innocuous matters such as being homesick, wetting the bed, throwing up, having trouble reading or using too much toilet paper." He further alleges that teachers and residence counselors used physical violence as a means of discipline, including beating, shoving students, throwing books and other equipment at students during classes, making students drink from urinals, slapping students. "Students caught speaking at night, even as young as six years old, endured a counselor jumping on their backs and beating them. Students were force-fed at mealtimes, were forced to eat their own vomit as punishment for throwing up and in some cases had their mouths literally washed out with soap." The lawsuit further claims that school staff, including residence counselors, were unqualified and failed to supervise students. The lawsuit goes on to state that assault among students was widespread and that there were inappropriate relationships between staff and students. In his statement, Seed said that he rebuffed the sexual advances of a residence counselor, known as a house father. The statement of claim states the provincial government had a duty of care to make sure the students were cared for and protected. Moreover, the province knew or should have known about the conditions at the school because a 1950 Royal Commission on Education visited the school. The lawsuit quotes a report from the commission: ". . . frankly, we were appalled by the conditions under with the staff and students work. The school buildings, with the exception of the residences, are inadequate, antiquated, dilapidated, dismal, poorly lighted, and constitute a fire hazard of the first magnitude . . . Such deficiency in school plan, particularly where blind children are in attendance, is inexcusable . ." The statement of claim also cites a 1991 Ministry of Education report that was done after the ministry received complaints of sexual abuse of students at two of its provincial schools. The report found, among other things, that supervision was inadequate, particularly at night, which led to incidents of sexual involvement between students, inappropriate touching and complaints of sexual assault," the statement of claim says. Instead of helping students, the school's environment was such that it was "further disabling to these individuals, physically, emotionally and psychologically." WEIL TENNIS: Sued in California for False Advertising ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action claims Mark Weil breaches contract, falsely advertises and intentionally misrepresents his Weil Tennis Academy, of Ojai, which charges up to $42,000 a year. A copy of the Complaint in Conliffe, et al. v. Weil, et al., Case No. 56-2011-00391924 (Calif. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/08/TennisSchool.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Clarke, Esq. Dugan P. Kelley, Esq. Matthew N. Mong, Esq. CHRISTMAN, KELLEY & CLARKE 831 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 884-9922 E-mail: matt@christmankelley.com dugan@christmankelley.com WESCO FINANCIAL: Defends Two Lawsuits Over Berkshire Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Wesco Financial Corporation is defending itself against two class action lawsuits over its proposed merger with Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 31, 2010. Two lawsuits were filed on February 8, 2011, by plaintiffs claiming to be Wesco shareholders challenging the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between Berkshire and Wesco. Both of the lawsuits name Wesco, Wesco's directors, Berkshire and Montana Acquisitions, LLC as defendants. One of them also names Blue Chip and Wesco's Chief Financial Officer as defendants. One of the actions was filed in Delaware Chancery Court and the other in Los Angeles Superior Court. Both purport to be class actions on behalf of Wesco shareholders. The Delaware action is styled Joel Krieger v. Wesco Financial Corporation, et al. The Los Angeles action is styled James Kinsey v. Wesco Financial Corporation, et al. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that Wesco's directors have breached their fiduciary duties based on allegations that (i) the consideration being offered is unfair and inadequate, (ii) statements in Wesco's annual reports comparing its prospects for growth with those of Berkshire have been unduly unfavorable to Wesco, and (iii) the Wesco directors' approval of the proposed merger was tainted by conflicts of interest between Berkshire and the non-Berkshire shareholders of Wesco in breach of the Board's fiduciary duties. The lawsuits also allege that Berkshire and its affiliates violated fiduciary duties owed by a majority shareholder and/or aided and abetted the alleged breaches by Wesco's directors. The plaintiffs seek various remedies, including enjoining the transaction from being consummated in accordance with the agreed- upon terms. The defendants intend to defend against these and any additional actions asserting similar claims that may be brought in the future. WILLIS GROUP: Settlement Talks in Gender Suit Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company has yet to reach an agreement on certain injunctive terms with plaintiffs in a gender discrimination class action in New York, the Company disclosed in its February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. In March 2008, Willis Group settled an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York commenced against the Company in 2001 on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of present and former female officer and officer equivalent employees alleging that the Company discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Although the Court had denied plaintiffs' motions to certify a nationwide class or to grant nationwide discovery, it certified a class of approximately 200 female officers and officer equivalent employees based in the Company's offices in New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. The settlement agreement provides for injunctive relief and a monetary payment, including the amount of attorney fees plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to receive, which was not material to the Company. In December 2006, a former female employee, whose motion to intervene in the class action was denied, filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, with almost identical allegations as those contained in the suit that was settled in 2008, except seeking a class period of 1998 to the time of trial (the class period in the settled suit was 1998 to the end of 2001). The Company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and the Court did not grant the Company permission to immediately file an appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss. The parties are in the discovery phase of the litigation. The suit was amended to include one additional plaintiff and another filed an arbitration demand that includes a class allegation. In January 2011, the Company reached an agreement with plaintiffs on a monetary settlement to settle all class claims and the claims of the individual named plaintiffs as well as the plaintiff that filed an arbitration demand. The amount of the settlement is not material, according to the Company. However, before this matter can be settled in its entirety, the parties must reach agreement on any injunctive measures the Company will implement and the Court must approve all terms of the settlement. Willis Group and its affiliates provide a broad range of insurance brokerage, reinsurance and risk management consulting services to clients worldwide. WILLIS GROUP: Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company continues to defend itself against class action complaints related to its role as insurance broker of Stanford Financial Group, the Company disclosed in its February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On July 2, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09- CV-01274-N, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others, relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaint generally alleged that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaint alleged that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. The putative class consisted of Stanford investors in Mexico and the complaint asserted various claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On August 12, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, notwithstanding the addition of certain factual allegations and Texas common law claims, largely mirrored the original and sought the same relief. On July 17, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 09-22085, was filed against Willis Group Holdings and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, relating to the same alleged course of conduct as the Troice complaint. Based on substantially the same allegations as the Troice complaint, but on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors, the Ranni complaint asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as various claims under Florida statutory and common law, and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial and costs. On or about July 24, 2009, a motion was filed by certain individuals -- Movants -- with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate and coordinate in the Northern District of Texas nine separate putative class actions -- including the Troice and Ranni actions, as well as other actions against various Stanford-related entities and individuals and the Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda -- relating to Stanford and its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. On August 6, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-CV-01474-D, was filed against Willis Group Holdings, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas, relating to the same alleged course of conduct as the Troice complaint. Based on substantially the same allegations as the Troice complaint, but on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan investors, the Canabal complaint asserted various claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On or about August 10, 2009, the Movants filed with the JPML a Notice of Related Action that referred the Canabal action to the JPML. On October 6, 2009, the JPML ruled on the transfer motion, transferring seven of the subject actions (including the Troice and Ranni actions) - i.e., the original nine actions minus two that had since been dismissed - for consolidation or coordination in the Northern District of Texas. On October 27, 2009, the parties to the Canabal action stipulated to the designation of that action as a related case and properly part of the new Stanford MDL proceeding in the Northern District of Texas. On September 14, 2009, a complaint, captioned Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). Based on substantially the same allegations as the Troice complaint, the Rupert complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as well as various Texas statutory and common law claims, and seeks rescission, damages, special damages and consequential damages of $79.1 million, treble damages of $237.4 million under the Texas Insurance Code, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed the Rupert action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this additional 'tag-along' action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. In November 2009, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order or CTO for the transfer of the Rupert action to the Northern District of Texas. On December 22, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate, or alternatively stay, the CTO, to which Willis of Colorado, Inc. responded on January 4, 2010. On April 1, 2010, the JPML denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the CTO and issued a final transfer order for the transfer of the Rupert action to the Northern District of Texas. On December 18, 2009, the parties to the Troice and Canabal actions stipulated to the consolidation of those actions and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs therein, collectively, filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint, which largely mirrors the Troice and Canabal predecessor complaints, but seeks relief on behalf of a worldwide class of Stanford investors. Also on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in the Canabal action filed a Notice of Dismissal, dismissing the Canabal action without prejudice. On February 25, 2010, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated Troice/Canabal action. Those motions are currently pending. On May 24, 2010, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Troice/Canabal action filed a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Class Action Complaint, which, among other things, adds several Texas statutory claims. That motion is also currently pending. On September 16, 2010, a complaint, captioned Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-01862-O, was filed on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. Although this is not a class action, the Casanova complaint is based on substantially the same allegations as the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated Troice/Canabal action. The Casanova complaint asserts various claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants have not yet responded to the Ranni or Rupert or Casanova complaints. Additional actions could be brought in the future by other investors in certificates of deposit issued by Stanford and its affiliates, the Company avers. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to defend itself vigorously. Willis Group and its affiliates provide a broad range of insurance brokerage, reinsurance and risk management consulting services to clients worldwide. YAHOO! INC: Files Brief in Support of "Overture" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Inc. filed a response in February to appeals filed by parties objecting the approval of a global settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Feb. 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On July 12, 2001, the first of several purported securities class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain underwriters involved in Overture Services Inc.'s IPO, Overture, and certain of Overture's former officers and directors. The court consolidated the cases against Overture. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 involving undisclosed compensation to the underwriters, and improper practices by the underwriters, and seek unspecified damages. Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous public companies that conducted IPOs of their common stock since the mid-1990s. All of these lawsuits were consolidated. On October 5, 2009, the court granted class certification and granted final approval of a stipulated global settlement and plan of allocation. On October 6, 2010, various individuals objecting to the settlement filed opening appeal briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and in early February 2011 Yahoo! and other appellees filed reply briefs in support of the settlement. YELLOW BOOK: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Massey, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that an East Texas businessman is suing Yellow Book, alleging the telephone directory is fraudulently misleading customers about the size of the ads they are purchasing. Scott Ellis, individually and as a representative of all others similarly situated, filed a deceptive trade practices suit against Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Co. Inc. on March 2 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Ellis purchased a full-page business telephone directory display advertisement in the 2008-2009 edition of the Tyler/Smith County Yellow Book. The next year, he signed a contract and purchased a full-page ad with additional listings for $1,198 per month. However, Mr. Ellis states that Yellow Book did not disclose that the listing he purchased would be downsized by approximately 26% for the new directory. Mr. Ellis states the reduced page size made the ads more difficult to read and reduced the marketing effectiveness of the ad. The proposed class will contain Texas consumers who purchased 2009-2010 or later Yellow Book reduced size display adverting or directory listings. Yellow Book is accused of violating the Deceptive Trade Practices Act by failing to notify consumers of the reduced ad size. The plaintiff is seeking more than $5 million in damages, interest, court costs and attorney fees. Ellis is represented by Addison attorney Charles E. Ames, Thomas A. Crosley Law Firm in San Antonio and Jeffrey T. Embry of Hossley & Embry in Tyler. A jury trial is requested. U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case. Case No. 2:11-cv-00138 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Facing 550 Pending Cases at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2010, was a defendant in about 550 active asbestos cases involving about 3,090 plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in about 440 active asbestos cases involving about 3,040 plaintiffs. During 2010, settlements and dismissals resulted in the disposition of about 200 claims and the Company paid about US$8 million in settlements. New filings added about 250 claims. About 2,600, or about 84%, of these claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon its experience in such cases, the Company said it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against the Company will likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. Most of the claims filed in 2010, 2009 and 2008 involve individual or small groups of claimants. Historically, about 89% of the cases against the Company did not specify any damage amount or stated that the damages sought exceeded the amount required to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed. Jurisdictional amounts generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000. United States Steel Corporation is an integrated steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products with major production operations in North America and Europe. The Company is based in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Subsidiaries Still Facing Exposure Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Suits are pending in New York State and federal courts against Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. These Utilities are Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. In 2010, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10 million. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million and regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million. Its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$106 million and regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$31 million. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, CECONY's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million and regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million. Its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$101 million and regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$31 million. Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity to 3.3 million residential and business customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland Utilities serves more than 400,000 electric and gas customers in three states. The Company is based in New York. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 110 Manhattan Steam Main Actions Open v. CECONY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), is involved in about 110 lawsuits regarding a 2007 steam main rupture in Manhattan. In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. The cases seek generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The Company has not accrued a liability for the suits. Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity to 3.3 million residential and business customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland Utilities serves more than 400,000 electric and gas customers in three states. The Company is based in New York. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Faces 15,476 Abex Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries plc is involved in 15,476 pending asbestos- related Abex Claims at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011. 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. 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 the Company 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. From Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2010, a total of 149,350 Abex Claims were filed, of which 133,874 claims have been resolved. During the years ended Dec. 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 claims filed were 1,610; 1,565; and 2,641, respectively and claims resolved were 8,963; 2,424; and 8,403, respectively. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,065 before insurance. A total of US$189.4 million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2010. 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. Major electrical product and tool brands include Buss fuses, Capri conduits, Crescent pliers and wrenches, EMSA power transformers, Plumb hammers, and Weller soldering supplies. The Company is based in Dublin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Posts $747.1MM Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries plc, as of Dec. 31, 2010, estimated that the undiscounted asbestos liability for pending and future indemnity and defense costs for the next 45 years will be US$747.1 million. The amount included for unpaid indemnity and defense costs is not significant at Dec. 31, 2010. The estimated liability is before any tax benefit or insurance recoveries 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 believes are reasonably possible that indicate a broader range of potential estimates from US$500 to US$785 million (undiscounted). 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. Major electrical product and tool brands include Buss fuses, Capri conduits, Crescent pliers and wrenches, EMSA power transformers, Plumb hammers, and Weller soldering supplies. The Company is based in Dublin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records $163.6MM Receivable at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries plc's asbestos receivable for recoveries of costs from insurers amounted to US$163.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, of which US$59.5 million relate to costs previously paid or insurance settlements. As of Dec. 31, 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. About 92% of the US$163.6 million receivable from insurance companies at Dec. 31, 2010 is due from domestic insurers whose AM Best rating is Excellent (A-) or better. 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. Major electrical product and tool brands include Buss fuses, Capri conduits, Crescent pliers and wrenches, EMSA power transformers, Plumb hammers, and Weller soldering supplies. The Company is based in Dublin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Has $432MM Retirement Obligations at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc.'s asset retirement obligations amounted to US$432 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$415 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011. The Company's AROs are primarily related to the future dismantlement of equipment on leased property and environmental obligations related to nuclear decommissioning, ash disposal, site closures, and fuel storage facilities. In addition, the Company has also identified conditional AROs for asbestos removal and disposal, which are specific to certain power generation operations. NRG Energy, Inc. is a primarily wholesale power generation company with a significant presence in major competitive power markets in the United States. The Company is based in Princeton, N.J. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 12,000 Premises, Product Claims Pending v. FMC --------------------------------------------------------------- There were about 12,000 premises and product asbestos claims pending against FMC Corporation in several jurisdictions as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011. Like hundreds of other industrial companies, the Company has been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of the Company or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued operations. The machinery and equipment businesses the Company owned or operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these components. Further, the asbestos-containing parts for this machinery and equipment were accessible only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. Since the 1980s, the Company has had discharged about 98,000 asbestos claims against it, the overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed without any payment to the plaintiff. Settlements by the Company with claimants since that time have totaled about $36.6 million. FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. The Company operates in three distinct business segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and Industrial Chemicals. The Company is based in Philadelphia. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qwest Corp. Records $31MM Obligations at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Qwest Corporation's asset retirement obligations amounted to US$31 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011. As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's asset retirement obligations balance was primarily related to estimated future costs of removing circuit equipment from leased properties and estimated future costs of properly disposing of asbestos and other hazardous materials upon remodeling or demolishing buildings. Qwest Corporation offers data, Internet, video and voice services within the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The Company is based in Denver, Colo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Has $12.03MM Claims Reserve at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NewMarket Corporation's non-current asbestos litigation reserve was US$12,030,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$12,111,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011. The Company's asbestos insurance receivables were US$8,489,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$8,672,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by subsidiaries of the Company. The Company has never manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos. Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple defendants. NewMarket Corporation is a holding entity for two operating subsidiaries: Afton Chemical and Ethyl Corporation. Afton Chemical manufactures petroleum additives used to improve the performance of gasoline, diesel, and other fuels and as a lubricant in motor oil, fluids, and grease. Ethyl's main product is the antiknock additive tetraethyl lead. The Company is based in Richmond. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Motions Denied in Mueller Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Massachusetts County denied Mueller Co.'s and OneBeacon America Insurance Co.'s respective motions for summary judgment. Judge Stephen E. Neel entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09- 0826-BLS2 on Dec. 20, 2010. At issue in this case was whether OneBeacon and its third-party claims administrator, Resolute Management, Inc. - New England Division, were required to pay and reimburse Mueller Co. for costs incurred in the defense of underlying asbestos personal injury claims, and whether Mueller had the right to continue to control its defense of those claims, including selection of defense counsel. The matter was before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment seeking to establish the parties' rights and obligations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Split Ruling in Bartz Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Ruby M. Bartz, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Hagel entered judgment in Case No. 09-2961 on Jan. 5, 2011. Ruby M. Bartz, who is self-represented, appealed a June 26, 2009 Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that denied entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation and accrued benefits. Mrs. Bartz is the widow of Donald LeRoy Bartz, who served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from April 1943 to November 1945 and from May 1951 to May 1952, including service in World War II. He died on June 4, 2005 and his death certificate listed cardiovascular disease as the immediate cause of death, dementia as an underlying cause, and hypertension and congestive heart failure as contributing conditions. In May 2006, Mrs. Bartz applied for dependency and indemnity compensation and accrued benefits. In a statement that accompanied her application, she contended that her husband had been diagnosed with multiple myeloma that she believed caused his death and resulted from either exposure to radiation during his service in Japan during World War II or exposure to asbestos encountered while serving aboard U.S. Navy ships. In a September 2006 rating decision, a VA regional office denied Mrs. Bartz's claims for accrued benefits and for dependency and indemnity compensation to the extent that she contended that her husband's multiple myeloma resulted from his service and caused or contributed to his death. The regional office denied Mrs. Bartz's additional claim for dependency and indemnity compensation. Mrs. Bartz filed a Notice of Disagreement in February 2008 and statements in support of her claim in April and May 2008, along with private and VA medical records indicating Mr. Bartz had been diagnosed with multiple myeloma, hypertension, dementia, and cardiovascular disease. After further development, the Board issued the decision now on appeal in June 2009. First, the Board determined that Mr. Bartz's death was not the result of a service-connected condition. Accordingly, the Board found that Mrs. Bartz was not entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation. Finally, the Board denied Mrs. Bartz's claim for accrued benefits because there was no evidence of record to show that, at the time of his death, Mr. Bartz was receiving, owed, or had submitted an application for VA benefits. That portion of the June 26, 2009, decision that denied entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation on the basis that Mr. Bartz's death was not service connected was vacated and the matter was remanded for further development and readjudication consistent with this decision. The remainder of June 26, 2009 Board decision was affirmed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Hood Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, upheld the ruling of the Cowlitz Superior Court, in a case involving asbestos styled Irene M. Hood and Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington, Respondents v. Weyerhaeuser Company & Subsidiaries, Appellant. Judges Ellington, Leach, and Schindler entered judgment in Case No. 64974-4-I on Jan. 10, 2011. Leslie Hood worked for Weyerhaeuser from 1964 until his voluntary retirement in 1990. Seven years after he retired, he was diagnosed with asbestos-related illness, which caused his death in 1999. He was survived by his wife Irene, who filed an application for death benefits under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act. The Department determined that workplace exposure to asbestos caused Mr. Hood's disease, that the date of manifestation was Jan. 24, 1997, and entered an order allowing the claim under former RCW 51.32.050(2)(a) (1995). Weyerhaeuser appealed, contending that Mr. Hood's voluntary retirement precluded the claim. The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals affirmed the order. Weyerhaeuser did not appeal further. The Department then issued a "wage order" awarding benefits. Consistent with the Department's standard policy in such cases, the order based the benefit rate on Mr. Hood's last known wages - his gross monthly wages at the time he retired. According to the pension adjudicator for the Department, this approach to calculation of death benefits is longstanding, was the practice of her predecessors, and has been the consistent practice of the Department since she began adjudicating benefit claims in 1993. Weyerhaeuser appealed to the Board, arguing that under the statute, benefits should be based upon Mr. Hood's wages at the time of manifestation of his fatal occupational disease rather than his wages at the time of retirement (US$4,223.60 per month), so the award should be the statutory minimum (US$185 per month). The Board agreed, reversed the Department's determination, and awarded benefits at the minimum amount. Mrs. Hood and the Department both appealed. Cowlitz County Superior Court granted summary judgment in their favor, reversed the Board, and reinstated the Department's award of benefits based on Mr. Hood's last known wages. The court also granted Mrs. Hood and the Department their reasonable attorney fees and costs. Weyerhaeuser appealed, contending the award violates legislative intent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Dismissal Bid in CSX Claims v. Barber ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, granted Karen S. Barber's motion to dismiss an asbestos lawsuit filed by CSX Transportation, Inc. The case is styled CSX Transportation, Inc. a corporation, Plaintiff v. Karen S. Barber, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of James M. Siple, Deceased, Defendant. District Judge Robert C. Chambers entered judgment in Civil Action No. 3:10-1098 on Jan. 18, 2011. This was an action for declaratory relief brought by CSX against Mrs. Barber as the administratrix and personal representative of the estate of James M. Siple. Specifically, CSX sought a declaration that the Mrs. Barber must indemnify it for any costs and expenses it incurs as a result of her decision to file a concurrent Kentucky lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Siple. Further, CSX sought a declaration that the State court lawsuit was precluded by a release clause signed by Mr. Siple. James Siple was employed as a brakeman and conductor by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and its successor in interest, CSX, from 1948 to 1979. During his employment, he was exposed to asbestos and other toxic substances, which ultimately led to a diagnosis of a non-malignant, asbestos-related lung disease. As a result, in 1992, Mr. Siple filed a claim against CSX in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia under the Federal Employers Liability Act. The Kanawha County action was settled for a sum of US$48,000. As a condition of the settlement, Mr. Siple signed a full release of related future tort claims he could later have against CSX. A few years after settling his Kanawha County action with CSX, Mr. Siple was diagnosed with lung cancer. He passed away on Feb. 19, 2008. Thereafter, Mrs. Barber instituted an action against CSX in Greenup County Kentucky Circuit Court for violations of FELA. Among her claims was a wrongful death count. CSX answered the complaint, attaching the settlement agreement and raising the release clause as an affirmative defense. The Kentucky action is still in discovery. On Sept. 13, 2010, CSX initiated the instant action in this Court to declare valid the provisions of the release and indemnity clauses signed by Mr. Siple in 1998. Mrs. Barber had filed a Motion to Dismiss CSX's request for declaratory relief. Craig R. Banford, Esq., of Huddleston Bolen in Huntington, W.Va., represented CSX. James A. McKowen, Esq., of James F. Humphreys & Associates in Charleston, W.Va., John E. Guerry, III, Esq., of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C., represented Mrs. Barber. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Dismissal Bid in CSX Case v. Collins --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, granted Tim Collins's motion to dismiss an asbestos lawsuit filed by CSX Transportation, Inc. The case is styled CSX Transportation, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiff v. Tim Collins, Individually and as Administrator for the Estate of Willie Collins, Deceased, Defendant. District Judge Robert C. Chambers entered judgment in Civil Action No. 3:10-1099 on Jan. 18, 2011. This was an action for declaratory relief brought by CSX against Mr. Collins as the administrator and personal representative of the estate of Willie Collins. CSX sought a declaration that Mr. Collins must indemnify it for any costs and expenses it incurs as a result of his decision to file a concurrent Kentucky lawsuit on behalf of Willie Collins. CSX further sought a declaration that the State court lawsuit was precluded by a release clause signed by Willie Collins. Willie Collins was employed as a laborer, oiler and blacksmith by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and its successor in interest, CSX, from 1955 to 1991. During his employment, Willie Collins was exposed to asbestos and other toxic substances, which ultimately led to a diagnosis of asbestosis. As a result, in 1999, he filed a claim against CSX in the Circuit Court of Mason County, W.Va. The Mason County action was ultimately settled for a sum of US$20,000. As a condition of the settlement, Willie Collins signed a full release of related future tort claims he could later have against CSX. A few years after settling his Mason County action with CSX, Willie Collins was diagnosed with lung cancer. He passed away on Dec. 2, 2008. Thereafter, Mr. Collins instituted an action against CSX in Greenup County Kentucky Circuit Court for violations of FELA and the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act. Among his claims was a wrongful death count. CSX answered the complaint, attaching the settlement agreement and raising the release clause as an affirmative defense. The Kentucky action is still in discovery. On Sept. 13, 2010, CSX initiated the instant action in this Court to declare valid the provisions of the release and indemnity clauses signed by Willie Collins in 2001. Mr. Collins has filed a Motion to Dismiss CSX's request for declaratory relief. Craig R. Banford, Esq., of Huddleston Bolen in Huntington, W.Va., represented CSX. James A. McKowen, Esq., of James F. Humphreys & Associates in Charleston, W.Va., John E. Guerry, III, Esq., of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C., represented Mr. Collins. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Facing 65,263 Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand plc faced 65,263 open asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 63,887 open claims at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011. At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 4,445 new claims filed; 2,099 claims settled; and 970 claims dismissed. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 4,821 new claims filed; 2,514 claims settled; and 1,729 claims dismissed. Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims has been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane Inc. and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. From receipt of its first asbestos claims more than 25 years ago to Dec. 31, 2010, the Company has resolved (by settlement or dismissal) about 339,000 claims arising from the legacy Ingersoll Rand businesses. The total amount of all settlements paid by the Company (excluding insurance recoveries) and by its insurance carriers is about US$469 million. From receipt of the first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago through Dec. 31, 2010, the Company has resolved about 97,947 (by settlement or dismissal) claims arising from the legacy Trane business. The Company and its insurance carriers have paid settlements of about US$178 million on these claims. Trane faced 83,369 open asbestos claims at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 92,298 open claims at Dec. 31, 2009. At Dec. 31, 2010, Trane recorded 2,448 new claims filed; 1,045 claims settled; and 10,332 claims dismissed. At Dec. 31, 2009, Trane recorded 2,343 new claims filed; 1,042 claims settled; and 9,312 claims dismissed. At Dec. 31, 2010, over 90% of the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims. At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's liability for asbestos-related matters and the asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries totaled US$1.020 billion million and US$346.2 million, respectively, compared to US$1.113 billion and US$424.2 million at Dec. 31, 2009. Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global company that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency. The Company is based in Dublin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Facing Coverage Litigation in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand plc's subsidiary, Trane Inc., continues to be in litigation in New Jersey court against certain non-settled insurers whose policies Trane said it believes also provide coverage for asbestos claims. One of those insurers is the remaining unsettled insurer defendant in an action Trane filed in April 1999 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers (the NJ Litigation), which originally sought coverage for environmental claims and later was expanded to include claims for coverage for asbestos-related liabilities. The environmental claims against the insurers in the NJ Litigation have been resolved or dismissed without prejudice for later resolution. In addition, all but one of the insurer-defendants in the NJ Litigation have settled with Trane in connection with asbestos-related liabilities. Trane also filed an action in November 2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wis., against two insurers that raises claims for coverage in connection with a subset of Trane's historical asbestos liabilities. Effective Aug. 26, 2008, Trane entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with the following five insurance companies or groups: 1) Hartford; 2) Travelers; 3) Allstate (solely in its capacity as successor-in-interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company); 4) Dairyland Insurance Company; and 5) AIG. In addition, on Sept. 12, 2008, Trane entered into a settlement agreement with Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company, both members of the Everest Re group, resolving all claims in the NJ Litigation involving policies issued by those companies (Everest Re Agreement). The Everest Re Agreement contains a number of elements, including policy buy-outs and partial buy-outs in exchange for a cash payment along with coverage-in-place features similar to those contained in the August 26 Agreement, in exchange for certain releases and indemnifications by Trane. On Jan. 26, 2009, Trane entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with Columbia Casualty Company, Continental Casualty Company, and Continental Insurance Company (CNA Agreement), and agreed to a dismissal without prejudice of its environmental claims against CNA. Trane also has reached a coverage-in-place agreement, effective Dec. 15, 2009, with Century Indemnity Company and International Insurance Company (Century-International Agreement). The Century-Indemnity Agreement has an initial term of three years, which renews automatically for successive three year terms unless either Trane or the insurer signatories elect to forward to the other party a notice of non-renewal. Effective Feb. 4, 2010, Trane reached an agreement with certain London market insurance companies (LMC Agreement) that resolved all claims against the policies at issue. The LMC Agreement provides for the periodic reimbursement by the insurer signatories of a portion of Trane's costs for asbestos bodily injury claims based on the attainment of certain aggregate indemnity and defense payment thresholds, and in exchange for certain releases and indemnifications from Trane. Trane also reached agreement on Dec. 31, 2009 with Harper Insurance Company, a party to the LMC Agreement, for the buy-out of Harper's obligations to Trane under the LMC Agreement and for certain releases and indemnifications from Trane in exchange for a one- time cash payment by Harper. Trane remains in settlement negotiations with the few insurer defendants in the NJ Litigation not encompassed within the August 26 Agreement, the Everest Re Agreement, the CNA Agreement, the Century-International Agreement and the LMC Agreement. In addition to its pursuit of coverage from its solvent insurers as outlined above, Trane also is pursuing claims against the estates of insolvent insurers in connection with its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims. Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global company that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency. The Company is based in Dublin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings Corp. Cites $17.8MM ARO at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- As of Dec. 31, 2010, UIL Holdings Corporation's asset retirement obligation, including estimated conditional AROs, was US$17.8 million and consisted primarily of obligations related to removal or retirement of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated equipment, gas pipeline and cast iron gas mains. The long-lived assets associated with the AROs are gas storage property, distribution property and other property. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company's ARO was US$200,000. UIL Holdings Corporation's primary business is ownership of its operating regulated utilities. The utility businesses consist of the electric distribution and transmission operations of The United Illuminating Company and the natural gas transportation, distribution and sales operations of The Southern Connecticut Gas Company, and The Berkshire Gas Company. The Company is based in New Haven, Conn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Records $3.8MM CAROs at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's estimated fair value of conditional asset retirement obligation liabilities was US$3.8 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$3.5 million at Dec. 31, 2009. The Company has conditional asset retirement obligations, or CAROs, at several of its fabricated products facilities. The vast majority of such CAROs consist of incremental costs that would be associated with the removal and disposal of asbestos (all of which is believed to be fully contained and encapsulated within walls, floors, roofs, ceilings or piping) at certain of the Company's older facilities if such facilities were to undergo major renovation or be demolished. During the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company re-assessed and revised its estimates relating to the timing and future costs of various asbestos removal projects at one facility. Both upward and downward revisions relating to cost estimates were made. The downward revisions in cost estimates resulted in a US$1.3 decrease in CARO liabilities and cumulative adjustments reducing Cost of products sold, excluding depreciation, amortization and other items, and Depreciation and amortization by about US$1.1 million and US$100,000, respectively. The total of such adjustments increased both basic and diluted earnings per share by about US$0.05 per share. The upward revisions in costs estimates resulted in a $1.3 increase in both CARO liabilities and CARO assets. The Company used a credit-adjusted, risk-free rate of 10.8% in estimating the fair value with respect to the CARO liability associated with the upward cost adjustment. The Company's results for 2010, 2009 and 2008 included an immaterial amount of depreciation expense associated with CARO- related costs. For 2010, 2009 and 2008, accretion of CARO liabilities (recorded in Cost of products sold) was US$300,000; US$200,000 and US$300,000, respectively. Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's primary line of business is the production of semi-fabricated specialty aluminum products. The Company also owns a 49% interest in Anglesey Aluminium Limited, which owns and operates a secondary aluminum remelt and casting facility in Holyhead, Wales. The Company is based in Foothill Ranch, Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Windstream Corp. AROs Total $41.7MM at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Windstream Corporation's asset retirement obligations totaled US$41.7 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$34.8 million at Dec. 31, 2009 and are included in other long term liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The Company's asset retirement obligations include legal obligations to remediate the asbestos in certain buildings if the Company were to abandon, sell or otherwise dispose of the buildings and to dispose of its chemically-treated telephone poles at the time they are removed from service. Windstream Corporation is a communications and technology solutions provider, specializing in complex data, high-speed Internet access, voice and transport services to customers in 29 states. The Company operates an extensive local and long-haul network, including 60,000 route miles of fiber, used to deliver voice and data traffic of Windstream, as well as other carriers on a wholesale basis. The Company is based in Little Rock, Ark. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anadarko Petroleum Still Facing Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Company has been named as a defendant in various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and benzene while working at refineries (previously owned by predecessors of acquired companies) located in Texas, California and Oklahoma. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is an independent oil and natural- gas exploration and production company, with 2.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) of proved reserves at Dec. 31, 2010. The Company is based in The Woodlands, Tex. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 886 W.Va. Claims, 11 Pa. Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- As of Dec. 31, 2010, Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s total number of claims alleging exposure to asbestos was 886 in West Virginia, 11 in Pennsylvania and two in Illinois. The Distribution Companies have been named as defendants in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos- containing products by the Company. These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Company's generation facilities. Its historical operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London. Certain insurers have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits. As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company is involved in three asbestos and/or environmental insurance-related actions: -- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington County, Md.), -- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.) and -- Allegheny Energy, Inc., et al. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Civil Action No. 10-CV-3142 WY (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania). The parties are seeking a declaration of coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental claims. Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated energy business that owns and operates electric generation facilities primarily in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland. Its operations are organized into two business segments: The Merchant Generation segment and The Regulated Operations segment. The Company is based in Greensburg, Pa. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Carries $35.67MM A&E Reserve at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Assurant, Inc., at Dec. 31, 2010, carries asbestos and environmental case reserves, as recommended by the various pool managers, totaling US$35,668,000 and IBNR (incurred but not reported reserves) totaling US$25,461,000. The Company's property and warranty line of business includes exposure to asbestos, environmental and other general liability claims arising from its participation in various reinsurance pools from 1971 through 1985. This exposure arose from a short duration contract that the Company discontinued writing many years ago. Assurant, Inc. provides specialized insurance products and related services in North America and select worldwide markets. It has four operating segments: Assurant Solutions, Assurant Specialty Property, Assurant Health, and Assurant Employee Benefits. The Company is based in New York. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Faces in Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation continues to be a defendant in a substantial number of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by the Company's heritage companies in the past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as internal components of process equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. Flowserve Corporation develops and manufactures precision- engineered flow control equipment integral to the movement, control and protection of the flow of materials in its customers' critical processes. The Company is based in Irving, Tex. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITC Holdings Corp. Posts $3.3MM AROs at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITC Holdings Corp.'s asset retirement obligations of US$3.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and US$3.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 are included in other liabilities. The Company has identified conditional asset retirement obligations primarily associated with the removal of equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos. ITC Holdings Corp.'s business consists primarily of the electric transmission operations of its Regulated Operating Subsidiaries. The Company currently operates high-voltage systems in Michigan's Lower Peninsula and portions of Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri and Kansas that transmit electricity from generating stations to local distribution facilities connected to the Company's systems. The Company is based in Novi, Mich. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Short's Actions on Hazard Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, dismissed claims filed by pro se plaintiff Lenny Short in litigation involving asbestos styled Lenny Short, Plaintiff v. Curtis A. Williams, et al. Defendants. District Judge John E. Jones III entered judgment in Civil Action No. 4:10-CV-2451 on Jan. 14, 2011. Mr. Short, an inmate presently confined at the Huntingdon State Correctional Institution (SCI Huntingdon) in Huntingdon, Pa., initiated the action. He also has filed an Application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. In his Complaint, filed on Nov. 30, 2010, Mr. Short alleged that he was exposed to asbestos on Oct. 28, 2008 while he was an inmate at SCI Huntingdon. He was notified of his potential exposure to asbestos in a letter dated Dec. 19, 2008, which is attached to his Complaint. Mr. Short's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was construed as a request to proceed without full prepayment of fees and costs, and the Motion was granted. Mr. Short's claims against "Trojan Boiler Incorporation" were dismissed with prejudice. His remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice to his ability to file an amended complaint as directed in a foregoing Memorandum. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board Decision in Gilbert Set Aside, Remanded -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims set aside and remanded a March 19, 2009 Board of Veterans' Appeals ruling in an asbestos claim styled Emma Gilbert, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. Judge Davis entered judgment in Case No. 09-2674 on Jan. 20, 2011. Emma Gilbert, widow of U.S. Navy veteran J.D. Gilbert, appealed the March 19, 2009 Board ruling, which denied her claims for service connection for the cause of death of her late husband and concomitant service-connected burial benefits. Mr. Gilbert had active duty service from February 1946 to November 1951. This service included an extended period serving in the boiler room of a ship. From 1998 through his death in February 2007, he was service connected for asbestosis rated as 60% disabling. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling in Cole's Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, reversed the ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. and Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc., formerly known as Kaiser Cement Company. The case is styled Chris Cole et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Judges Armstrong, Kriegler and Turner entered judgment in Case No. B221876 on Jan. 21, 2011. Chris Cole, individually and as successor-in-interest to Virginia Kay Cole, deceased, Jonathan Cole and Katherine Cole, appealed from: the final judgment and the grant of summary judgment and costs in favor of defendants. The Coles' first amended complaint, filed Sept. 12, 2008, alleged Virginia was exposed to asbestos while being present during the construction of homes in "areas not limited to Calabasas," California during the 1960s through the 1970s. On June 12, 2009, defendants moved for summary judgment on various theories including that plaintiffs had no evidence as to the identity of the suppliers who provided the asbestos that could have caused Virginia's fatal illness. A second amended case report dated July 27, 2009, prepared after the summary judgment motion was filed, identifies Virginia's father and sister as product identification witnesses. On Aug. 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed their summary judgment opposition. The trial court took the summary judgment and oral amendment motions under submission. On Sept. 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which alleged Virginia was exposed to defendants' asbestos while at residential construction sites. The ex parte motion was denied. On the same date, defendants' summary judgment motion was granted. Plaintiffs filed a reconsideration motion. The judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bostick Pleads Guilty to Breaching CAA Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Bostick, on Feb. 23, 2011, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act's asbestos work practice standards during the renovation of a 204-unit apartment building in Winnetka, Calif., in 2006, according to a U.S. Department of Justice press release dated Feb. 23, 2011. The federal Clean Air Act requires those who own or supervise the renovation of buildings that contain asbestos to adhere to certain established work practice standards. These standards were created to ensure the safe removal and disposal of the asbestos and the protection of workers. According to the plea agreement filed in federal court, Mr. Bostick knew in January 2006 that asbestos was present in the ceilings of the units of the apartment complex known as Forest Glen. Knowing that the asbestos was there, he and his co- conspirators hired a group of workers who were not trained or certified to conduct asbestos abatements, and had them scrape the ceilings of the apartment units without telling the workers about the asbestos. The illegal scraping resulted in the repeated release of asbestos- containing material throughout the apartment complex and the surrounding area and also caused the unlicensed workers to potentially be exposed to asbestos. After the illegal asbestos abatement was shut down by an inspector from the California South Coast Air Quality Management District, the asbestos was cleaned up at a cost of about US$1.2 million. On June 14, 2010, Joseph Yoon, the project manager, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the CAA's asbestos work place standards at the apartment site. A sentencing date has been set for April 25, 2011. A six-count indictment charging conspiracy and multiple Clean Air Act violations is pending against co-defendant Charles Yi, who was the owner of the Forest Glen condominiums. The trial in this case is scheduled for Mar. 15, 2011. The allegations in the indictment are mere accusations and all persons are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The case was investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Criminal Enforcement, the California South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California and the U.S. Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Payout Bill "Worries" Victims and Advocates ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Missouri House and Senate convened in Jefferson City, Mo., in early February 2011 to approve an asbestos workers' compensation bill, Mesothelioma.com reports. However, there is a key disagreement between the bodies regarding the bill's aim to correct mistakes made in a 2005 law have successfully lowered the state's workers' compensation rates. The bill also inadvertently allowed employees to sue other employees over workplace injuries. Moreover, it moved occupational diseases from the workers' compensation system to the circuit court. The main issue of debate between the house and senate is regarding whether current occupational disease lawsuits will remain in the circuit court or return to the workers' compensation system, where payouts will undoubtedly be smaller. Special attention is being paid to this issue as it would affect a current lawsuit against a former asbestos plant in St. Louis owned by CertainTeed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Puyallup Firm Fined $437.3T for Safety Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Washington Department of Labor & Industries has cited a Puyallup asbestos abatement company for several willful violations and fined the firm more than US$400,000, according to a Washington State Department of Labor & Industries press release dated Feb. 17, 2011. The action deals with two abatement projects the Company undertook last 2010 at the former Lynnwood High School and a building in Olympia used by the state Department of Transportation. At the Lynnwood site, Spenser Abatement Services Inc. was cited for 11 willful violations and three serious violations, with a fine of US$256,900. At the DOT building, the Company was cited for eight willful and three serious violations, and fined US$180,400. The L&I inspection of the Lynnwood site found significant problems with the Company's work removing materials, such as pipe insulation and vinyl tiles, that are known to contain asbestos. L&I inspections determined that Spenser Abatement ignored basic safety measures, exposing workers to unsafe levels of asbestos. The heavy dust at the Lynnwood site drove one Spenser employee to seek medical care for breathing difficulties. Michael Silverstein, Assistant Director of L&I's Division of Occupational Safety and Health, said, "We do not issue willful violations lightly, but this was an employer who knew the laws, knew how to protect his workers, and deliberately chose not to do so. Worker safety should never be placed at risk just to improve a company's bottom line." Spenser Abatement is one of more than 100 registered certified abatement contractors in Washington state. The Company was hired to prepare the former Lynnwood High School for demolition. In August 2010, L&I began an inspection of the site and found significant problems, including: -- Open removal of dry asbestos with no containment. -- Piles of bags containing chunks of dry asbestos materials. -- A lack of available water to wet asbestos-containing materials. -- No decontamination area for workers to shower or change their clothes. L&I inspectors found similar violations at the DOT worksite in Olympia. Together, the fines from both citations total US$437,300. The Company has 15 days to appeal. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hooley's Widow Seeks GBP350,000 in Payout Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel Hooley, of Lichfield, England and the widow of William Hooley -- who died form mesothelioma -- is suing for damages of up to GBP350,000, the Lichfield Mercury reports. Mrs. Hooley seeks compensation from Mr. Hooley's former employers Balfour Beatty Workplace, previously trading as Troughton & Young. According to a High Court writ, Mr. Hooley died from malignant mesothelioma at the age of 70, losing around 20 years of life expectancy. The 63-year-old Mrs. Hooley blames Mr. Hooley's former employers for his death and brands them negligent. Mr. Hooley worked for the company between 1961 and 1966 as an electrical site improver and then an electrical foreman, on contracts at various industrial, public sector and commercial premises. Mr. Hooley first noticed symptoms in the autumn of 2008, and underwent several procedures to treat the mesothelioma. The cancer spread, and he underwent more radiotherapy. He also needed a nerve block, Tens machine, and morphine to help control his pain. He was severely distressed by pain and breathlessness, and died in St. Giles Hospice when his condition deteriorated. The writ was issued by solicitor Alida Coates, of Irwin Mitchell. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pinehurst Local Reaches GBP70T Deal w/ Plessey --------------------------------------------------------------- William White, a 72-year-old former Plessey employee from Pinehurst, England, has reached a GBP70,000 asbestos settlement with Cheney Manor Industrial Estate-based former employer, the Swindon Advertiser reports. Mr. White's solicitor, Brigitte Chandler, a partner at Charles Lucas and Marshall and one of the United Kingdom's leading industrial disease lawyers, said she believes other former employees may also have been affected by asbestos at Cheney Manor. She said, "Mr. White was continuously exposed to asbestos after joining Plessey in 1972. The Company had buildings made of asbestos sheets and the sides and roofs of all four buildings contained asbestos." Ms. Chandler said that anyone concerned about their health should seek medical advice and then consult an experienced industrial disease lawyer if asbestos disease is diagnosed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Actions Filed in St. Clair Co. on Jan. 4 & 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Four new asbestos lawsuits have been added to St. Clair County, Ill.'s asbestos docket; one was filed on Jan. 5, 2011 and three were filed on Jan. 28, 2011, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. Mark Nuzzo filed the second asbestos lawsuit of 2011 in St. Clair County Circuit Court, while Gloria Hale filed the third; Marilyn Grapperhaus filed the fourth; and Joseph and Mary Bayer filed the fifth. Judy L. Cates, Esq., of The Cates Law Firm in Swansea and Cooney and Conway in Chicago represent Mr. Nuzzo. The Bayers, Marilyn Grapperhaus and Gloria Hale are represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill. In his complaint filed on Jan. 5, 2011, Mr. Nuzzo alleges 55 defendant companies caused his deceased wife, Robin Nuzzo, to develop mesothelioma after her exposure to asbestos-containing products through her father. Mrs. Nuzzo's father worked as an insulator, plant worker, home renovator and shade tree mechanic at various locations from 1968 until 1992, according to the complaint. After his work, Mrs. Nuzzo's father would carry asbestos particles home on his clothing, thereby exposing his daughter to the toxic substance, the suit states. In her complaint filed on Jan. 28, 2011, Mrs. Hale alleges 45 defendant companies caused the deceased Franklin Hale to develop lung cancer after his work near asbestos-containing products. In her complaint filed on Jan. 28, 2011, Marilyn Grapperhaus alleges 20 defendant companies caused her deceased husband, Charles Grapperhaus, to develop lung cancer after his work as a member of the U.S. Navy from 1959 until 1963 and as a truck driver, brick layer and carpenter at various locations throughout Illinois from 1963 until 2000. In their complaint filed on Jan. 28, 2011, the Bayers allege 62 defendant companies caused Joseph Bayer to develop esophageal cancer after his career working near asbestos-containing products. Mr. Bayer worked as a maintenance worker at Owens Illinois Glass from 1962 until 1963; as a sheet metal worker at McDonnell Douglas from 1963 until 1970; as a salesman at Prudential Life Insurance from 1970 until 1978; and as a salesman at Joe Bayer and Associates from 1978 until 2009, the complaint says. In his 16-count complaint, Mr. Nuzzo seeks a judgment in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount, plus costs. In his 10-count complaint, Mr. Bayer seeks a judgment of more than US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$150,000, economic damages of more than US$150,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants and to discourage them from committing similar actions in the future. In her 10-count complaint, Mrs. Grapperhaus seeks economic damages of more than US$200,000, a judgment of more than US$150,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$50,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants and to discourage them from committing similar actions in the future. In her 10-count complaint, Mrs. Hale seeks economic damages of more than US$200,000, plus a judgment of more than US$150,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$50,000, compensatory damages of more than US$150,000 and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants and to discourage them from committing similar actions in the future. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allen County OKs $500T for City-County Building ---------------------------------------------------------------- The council of Allen County, Ind., on Feb. 24, 2011, approved US$500,000 to remove or contain asbestos during the forthcoming renovation of the City-County Building, which is half of the amount requested, The News-Sentinel reports. County Commissioner Nelson Peters conceded the expense of dealing with the asbestos used as a fire retardant and insulation should have been included in original cost estimates. However, he and Councilman Larry Brown pointed out the scope of asbestos-related work was known only after architects determined which walls, floors and ceilings would be affected by the work needed to convert the 40-year-old building for use by city and county police and other offices. The true cost of asbestos removal or containment will be known when bids are opened March 2, 2011. Construction bids will be opened the next day, with contracts to be awarded March 11, 2011. The entire project is expected to cost no more than US$5 million, with US$1 million of that pledged by the city. If more than the US$3.5 million now pledged by council is needed, additional appropriations will be needed or the project will have to be scaled back. The US$500,000 approved by council will come from income taxes set aside for flood control. The other US$500,000 requested from the commissioners would have come from the general fund used to pay normal operating expenses. Council will conduct a special meeting on March 10, 2011 to scrutinize the renovation and asbestos bids and consider additional funding if necessary. ASBESTOS UPDATE: $200,000 Grant Awarded for Tulsa Site Cleanup -------------------------------------------------------------- The Morton Health Center in Tulsa, Okla., will receive a US$200,000 grant from the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality for the removal of asbestos and other hazardous substances from the building, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports. Environmental grants will help fund the cleanup of two abandoned properties in Tulsa and the Orton Health Center is one of them. When the hospital opened in 1921, it was the place in the city that would treat and care for African Americans, making it a site of historical significance. Now the historic Morton Health Center building sits empty, as the hospital has moved to a new building around the corner. The George Kaiser Family Foundation was the second recipient of grant funding, which it will use to clean up a contaminated industrial lot in the Brady District. The site, which was initially a residential area, will be turned into a community park and pavilion that will be environmentally efficient, with geothermal wells underneath for heating and cooling. The funding for both grants comes from federal stimulus money, which can be used to clean up hazardous materials like asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: British Rail Storeman's Death Linked to Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of Doug Varty, a former British Rail storeman from Sinfin, Derby, England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports. In a statement read out at the inquest, Mr. Varty recalled working with "asbestos in the air." He worked at the carriage and wagon works in Litchurch Lane, Derby, for more than 20 years during two spells. For three years in the 1950s, Mr. Varty worked close to fitters lagging pipes with asbestos and attaching brake cylinders under train carriages. He recalled the "dusty atmosphere" in the sheds, where he and his colleagues worked without protective masks. Then, during his second spell, from 1969 to 1987, he worked as a storeman, handling asbestos-insulated brake pads. Mr. Varty, of Carlyle Street, was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2009, and died at the Royal Derby Hospital, in October 2010 at the age of 74. A statement before his death, as part of a compensation claim, was read out at his inquest. In it, Mr. Varty said, "The brake pads were lined with asbestos and would come in cartons that were around 14 inches by 14 inches in size and contained 36 individual pads. It was my job to remove each one by hand. There was a great deal of dust inside each box and I would then brush each pad individually by hand. There was a lot of dust flying around. I never wore a mask and we were certainly not told that asbestos was dangerous in any way." Mr. Varty's ex-wife, Eva Blood, and son, Sean Varty, were at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court to hear the evidence. In his statement, Mr. Varty also recalled working in various jobs in Y Shed and U Shed at the Litchurch Lane works for three years in the 1950s. Dr. Ivan Robinson, the pathologist who carried out the postmortem examination on Mr. Varty, found a tumor in his chest wall. In a statement, he said, "As the tumor gets bigger, it crushes the lungs and spreads." Paul McCandless, assistant deputy coroner, recorded a verdict of death from industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belper Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard that the death of Michael Hudson, a retired worker from Belper, England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports. Mr. Hudson died at the age of 72 on Jan. 18, 2011 at the Royal Derby Hospital. Before his death, he recalled "tasting asbestos" in the air while working at power stations in Willington and Drakelow. He said he breathed in asbestos while it blew around in the air as workers chipped off and reapplied lagging to pipes. Mr. Hudson was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in October 2010. A post-mortem examination on his body revealed the lining of his right lung had been "obliterated by tumor." He was in the process of putting together a compensation claim when he died. In a statement made before his death, Mr. Hudson said he served in Malaya in the British Army for three years and started working for International Combustion, in Derby, in 1963. He said, "I worked as a welder at power stations at Willington and Drakelow. "I worked alongside the laggers who would chip asbestos lagging off the pipes, either by hand or using chisels. The pipes were covered in asbestos and you could see it blowing around in the air and taste it in your mouth. It was a very dusty process and I remember people using gloves but I do not remember using them myself." In his statement, Mr. Hudson said his breathlessness came on quickly in 2010 and he went for a chest X-ray at Ripley Hospital. He was then sent to the Royal Derby Hospital where he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. In a statement read out at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court, Dr. Ivan Robinson, the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination, said, "Mr. Hudson's right plural cavity was obliterated by white tumor while the left lung showed evidence of bronchial pneumonia." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grantham Rail Worker's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Lincolnshire, England, heard that the death of 82- year-old Derek Brackenbury, a rail worker from Grantham, England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Lincolnshire Echo reports. Mr. Brackenbury died on Sept. 7, 2010 at Welbourne Nursing Home. Coroner Stuart Fisher heard that a postmortem examination recorded his cause of death as malignant mesothelioma. Mr. Brackenbury had worked with asbestos for two years starting when he was just 16 years old. Mr. Fisher heard that Mr. Brackenbury had worked on the steam railways taking apart valves and replacing the asbestos inside. Mr. Brackenbury had made a compensation claim for his lung diseases, which he believed came as a direct result of his work. Summarizing the case, Mr. Fisher said, "I am satisfied that there is a history of working in unprotected conditions and the malignant mesothelioma resulted from the asbestos exposure. I find on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Brackenbury died as a result of industrial disease." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Subject to Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Eastman Chemical Company and its operations, from time to time, are parties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including product liability, personal injury, asbestos, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract, environmental, antitrust, health and safety, and employment matters, which are being handled and defended in the ordinary course of business. No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2011. Eastman Chemical Company is a global chemical company which manufactures and sells a broad portfolio of chemicals, plastics, and fibers. The Company has 16 manufacturing sites in nine countries that supply chemicals, plastics, and fibers products to customers throughout the world. The Company is based in Kingsport, Tenn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Pending in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case involving asbestos styled In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc. is pending against certain subsidiaries of Reynolds American, Inc. in Ohio County Circuit Court, W.Va. In the case filed February 1998, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1 million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants. Reynolds American, Inc. is a holding company whose operating subsidiaries include the second largest cigarette manufacturer in the United States, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and the second largest smokeless tobacco products manufacturer in the United States, American Snuff Company, LLC (formerly known as Conwood Company, LLC). The Company is based in Winston-Salem, N.C. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Fluor Corp. --------------------------------------------------------------- Fluor Corporation is a defendant in various lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos fibers and dust due to work that the Company may have performed at various locations, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has substantial third party insurance coverage to cover a significant portion of existing and any potential cost, settlements or judgments. Fluor Corporation is a professional services firm, providing engineering, procurement, construction and maintenance as well as project management services on a global basis. The Company serves a diverse set of industries worldwide including oil and gas, chemicals and petrochemicals, transportation, mining and metals, power, life sciences and manufacturing. The Company is based in Dallas. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 858 Lawsuits Pending v. GATX, Units at Jan. 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- There were 858 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX Corporation and its subsidiaries as of Jan. 28, 2011, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 24, 2011. Several of the Company's subsidiaries have also been named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury caused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages based on common law, statutory or premises liability or, in the case of American Steamship Company (ASC), the Jones Act, which provides limited remedies to certain maritime employees. Of the total number of pending cases, 826 are Jones Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC before the year 2000. During 2010, 16 new cases were filed, and 396 cases were dismissed or settled for an immaterial amount. In addition, demand has been made against the Company for asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in connection with the sale of certain former subsidiaries of the Company. It is possible that the number of these cases or claims for indemnity could begin to grow and that the cost of these cases, including costs to defend, could correspondingly increase in the future. GATX Corporation leases, operates and manages long-lived, widely used assets in the rail, marine and industrial equipment markets. The Company also invests in joint ventures that complement existing business activities. The Company is based in Chicago. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Power Records $300,000 Dec. 31 Liability --------------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporation subsidiary Cleco Power's liability for removal of asbestos is estimated at US$300,000 at Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009 and is included in other deferred credits. Under the authoritative guidance for asset retirement and environmental obligations, Cleco Power determined that a liability exists for cleanup and closing costs of solid waste facilities associated with its generating stations that use lignite and coal for fuel. Cleco Corporation is a public utility holding company that holds investments in several subsidiaries, including Cleco Power and Midstream, which are its operating business segments. The Company is based in Pineville, La. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holdings Posts $15MM Current Obligations -------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Holding Corporation's current asbestos claims obligations amounted to US$15 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$13 million at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 24, 2011. Non-current asbestos claims obligations amounted to US$86 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$100 million at Dec. 31, 2009. Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power technologies (sealing and thermal-management products) and genuine service parts for light and heavy vehicle manufacturers world-wide. As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company employed about 22,500 people, operated in 26 countries and owned or leased 92 major facilities around the world. The Company is based in Maumee, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Records 30,000 Claims at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Holding Corporation had about 30,000 active pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 31,000 claims at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 24, 2011. In addition, about 11,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or without payment. The Company has accrued US$101 million for indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future claims at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$113 million at Dec. 31, 2009. Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power technologies (sealing and thermal-management products) and genuine service parts for light and heavy vehicle manufacturers world-wide. As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company employed about 22,500 people, operated in 26 countries and owned or leased 92 major facilities around the world. The Company is based in Maumee, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Posts $52MM Dec. 31 Insurance Asset ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Holding Corporation had recorded US$52 million at Dec. 31, 2010 as an asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared with US$58 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2009. During 2010, the Company recorded US$1 million of pre-tax expense (US$2 during the first quarter, offset by a US$1 credit during the second quarter) to correct amounts primarily associated with asbestos-related insurance receivables at Dec. 31, 2009. Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power technologies (sealing and thermal-management products) and genuine service parts for light and heavy vehicle manufacturers world-wide. As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company employed about 22,500 people, operated in 26 countries and owned or leased 92 major facilities around the world. The Company is based in Maumee, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Posts $79.83MM Dec. 31 Current Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, recorded current asbestos and bankruptcy liabilities of US$79,831,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$12,476,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009. Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy charges were US$2,173,000 during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$40,397,000 during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2009. Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy charges were US$32,775,000 during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$54,079,000 during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2009. CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the aerospace, energy and industrial markets. With more than 7,000 customers in over 100 countries, the Company has a diversified product portfolio with recognized, market-leading brands. The Company is based in Burlington, Mass. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Pending Against Spence and Hoke ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related claims have been filed against two of CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries -- Spence, the stock of which the Company acquired in 1984; and Hoke, the stock of which the Company acquired in 1998. No other asbestos matters regarding Spence and Hoke were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 24, 2011. CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the aerospace, energy and industrial markets. With more than 7,000 customers in over 100 countries, the Company has a diversified product portfolio with recognized, market-leading brands. The Company is based in Burlington, Mass. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Posts $307.62MM Dec. 31 Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos-related liability was US$307,619,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$352,537,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 24, 2011. Long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable was US$194,570,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$244,265,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009. Net asbestos-related provision was US$5,478,000 for the fiscal quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$21,114,000 for the fiscal quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009. Net asbestos-related provision was US$5,410,000 for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$26,365,000 for the fiscal ended Dec. 31, 2009. Foster Wheeler AG is a global engineering and construction contractor and power equipment supplier delivering technically advanced, reliable facilities and equipment. The Company employs about 12,000 talented professionals with specialized expertise dedicated to serving its clients through one of its two primary business groups. The Company is based in Zug, Switzerland. ********* 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 2011. 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 * * *