/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110325.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 25, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 60
Headlines
ALCATEL-LUCENT: Funded $35.8 Million Net Settlement of 2005 Suit
APPLE INC: Steve Jobs Ordered to Answer Questions in iTunes Suit
AT&T: Faces Class Action Over "Inside Wire Protection Plan"
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
BARCLAYS BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Suit Dismissal
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Magistrates Not Certified, Suit Claims
BLUE CROSS: Sued Over Illegal Midyear Changes to Deductibles
CHINA SHENGHUO: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
GENERAL MOTORS: Claim in Warranty Class Suit Pegged at $8.8MM
GEORGIA: Faces Class Action Over Child Support Jail Time
GOOGLE INC: Court Rejects $125MM Accord Over Copyright Suit
INTERCLICK INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bose" Suits in New York Pending
IPAYMENT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Green" Suit in New York Pending
ITURAN LOCATION: Faces Discrimination Class Action in Tel-Aviv
J.CREW GROUP: Still Defends Class Suits Over TPG Acquisition
JONES SODA CO: Plaintiffs Did Not File Petition for Review
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Cold Remedy Class Action to Proceed
NEW ORLEANS, LA: April 15 Hearing for Property Tax Class Action
PERDUE INC: Class Action to Move Forward in Maryland
RANGE RESOURCES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
SHENGDATECH INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
SLM CORPORATION: Late Fees Violate Calif. Law, Suit Says
STARBUCKS CORP: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Tip Policy
U.S. DRUG STORES: Insist W.Va. AG Suit Should Stay in Fed Court
UNITED WESTERN: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado
WAL-MART STORES: To Urge Sup. Ct. Next Week to Junk Class Action
WHOLE FOODS: Sued for Engaging in Deceptive Business Practices
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Company Records $11.47M ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corporation Faces 36 Actions at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Accrues $1.3MM Dec. 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 9 Units Involved in Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Kodak Records $57MM AROs at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solutia Inc. Still Facing "Legacy Tort Claims"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Group Records $226.11M A&E Losses at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Ins. Has $9.98MM Dec. 31 Gross Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has 24,764 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Units Still Face Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corporation Still Subject to Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Facing 80 Actions in Md. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 68,513 Claims Open v. MetLife's Unit at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HP Fined $9,600 for Breach at Corvallis Campus
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Cases Filed in St. Clair on Feb. 2 & Feb. 22
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amencon Director Fined for Asbestos Mishandling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welsh Site Manager Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willmore Family Wins Legal Case to Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atwell's Case v. 6 Firms Filed Feb. 22 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Issues Statement on McLean Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. 2034 to Deter "Abuses" in Lawsuits Filed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comment Period for Madison Cases Opens March 11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Reacts to McLean Asbestos Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MACK Group Completes Cleanup of Pa. Power Stack
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lenney Awarded $1.36MM in Filter Suit in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gillenwater Awarded $90MM in Ill. Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ellesmere Secretary's Family Wins Payout Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Co. Posts $3.51BB A&E Reserves
*********
ALCATEL-LUCENT: Funded $35.8 Million Net Settlement of 2005 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcatel-Lucent funded the net settlement amount of U.S.$35.8 million
in December 2010 in connection with a class action lawsuit filed in
2005 against one of its subsidiaries, according to the Company's
March 21, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
In October 2005, a purported class action was filed by Peter A.
Raetsch, Geraldine Raetsch and Curtis Shiflett, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs alleged that
Lucent Technologies Inc. (now known as Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.)
failed to maintain health care benefits for retired management
employees for each year from 2001 through 2006 as required by the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the U.S. Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, and the Lucent pension and medical plans. Upon motion
by Lucent, the court remanded the claims to Lucent's claims review
process. A Special Committee was appointed and reviewed the claims.
The Special Committee denied the plaintiffs' claims and the case
returned to the court, where limited discovery was completed.
By Opinion and Order, each dated June 11, 2008, the court granted in
part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (as
to liability) and denied Lucent's cross-motion for summary judgment
(also as to liability). Specifically, the court found that Lucent
had violated the Plan's maintenance of benefits requirement with
respect to the 2003 plan year but that the record before the court
contained insufficient facts from which to conclude whether those
provisions were violated for years prior to 2003. The court also
"tentatively" ruled that defendants had not violated the Plan's
maintenance of cost provisions for the years 2004 through 2006. The
court ordered the parties to engage in further discovery
proceedings. Finally, the court denied, without prejudice,
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On June 26, 2008, Lucent
requested the court to certify the case for appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals in its discretion. This request was denied.
As a result of the court's findings for 2003, Lucent established a
provision for U.S.$27 million during the second quarter of 2008. As
a result of the ongoing discovery and analysis, this reserve was
adjusted from time to time. On January 21, 2010, the parties agreed
to settle the lawsuit for the sum of U.S.$36 million. The settlement
was memorialized in a Settlement Agreement, which was approved by
the court on November 8, 2010 by way of a Final Judgment Approving
Settlement. This judgment became final on December 9, 2010 as it was
not appealed within the statutory delay. Lucent funded the net
settlement amount of U.S.$35.8 million in December 2010.
APPLE INC: Steve Jobs Ordered to Answer Questions in iTunes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Ong, writing for AppleInsider, reports that Apple Chief
Executive Steve Jobs has been ordered by a judge to answer questions
in a class-action lawsuit accusing Apple of an iTunes Music Store
monopoly, according to court documents.
Bloomberg reports that U.S. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in San
Jose, Calif., authorized on March 21 limited questioning of Jobs by
lawyers representing consumers in the complaint. Lawyers will be
allowed two hours for questions limited to the sole topic of changes
Apple made to iPod software in October 2004 that disrupted
RealNetworks' Harmony software, which enabled songs purchased from
the company's music store to be transferred onto the iPod.
"The court finds that Jobs has unique, non-repetitive, firsthand
knowledge about the issues at the center of the dispute over
RealNetworks software," Judge Lloyd wrote in a court filing.
RealNetworks caused a controversy in July 2004 when it released its
Harmony work-around. Responding to the announcement of the
software, Apple quickly released a statement accusing the company of
adopting "the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod"
and warning customers that it was "highly likely" that Real's
Harmony technology would not work with future versions of the iPod
software.
As self-predicted, Apple disabled Harmony in a subsequent update to
its iPod software later that year.
RealNetwork admitted to investors in 2005 that the Harmony
technology had put the company at risk to a lawsuit from Apple.
However, such a lawsuit failed to materialize, and now the tables
have turned as Apple finds itself on the defensive in the
proceedings of an antitrust lawsuit from 2005. Thomas Slattery
filed a class-action lawsuit in early 2005 alleging that Apple had
violated federal antitrust laws and California's unfair competition
law by requiring that customers use an iPod to listen to music
purchased from the iTunes Music Store.
Though Apple was successful at having a few individual claims
dismissed from the suit through a court filing in 2005, an overall
motion to dismiss the case was denied by a judge.
According to the report, plaintiffs had originally requested to more
broadly question Jobs about "Apple's refusal to license FairPlay
technology to other companies or its decision to use the technology
on music purchased from iTunes and the iPod." But given that those
claims were dismissed in December 2009,
Judge Lloyd rejected the requests.
"Plaintiffs remaining claims rely on the allegation that Apple
attempted to maintain a monopoly in the audio download and portable
music player markets by issuing updates to FairPlay, Apple's
proprietary digital rights management software," David Kiernan, who
represents Apple, wrote in a December court filing, adding that "any
deposition of Mr. Jobs would be repetitive, at best."
Since the lawsuit was originally filed, Apple has negotiated with
music labels for a more open iTunes Music Store. A footnote in a
court document notes that, by March 2009, iTunes music tracks are
now offered without digital rights management (DRM).
Mr. Jobs, who is a survivor of a rare form of pancreatic cancer, is
currently on an indefinite medical leave of absence from Apple.
After Mr. Jobs began his leave in mid-January, speculation arose
that his health was in serious decline, with one tabloid publishing
alleged photos of an emaciated Jobs at Stanford Cancer Center.
Contrary to some rumors, however, Mr. Jobs was well enough to take
the stage earlier this month for the unveiling of the iPad 2.
AT&T: Faces Class Action Over "Inside Wire Protection Plan"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Like thousands of other customers across the U.S., Gloria Girton
pays AT&T nearly $120 every year for a service she doesn't need and
can't use.
The 82-year old Wilmington apartment dweller is billed $9.99 every
month by the corporate giant for an "Inside Wire Protection Plan"
even though a landlord owns her building's interior telephone wires
and she has no legal responsibility for maintaining them.
On March 22, 2011, Ms. Girton, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to end
AT&T's unlawful practice of wrongfully billing for such plans
nationwide. Outside of North Carolina, they are known by such names
as "Wire Pro," "Inside Wire Maintenance," and "Home Wire
Protection."
Gloria Girton and AT&T customers in North Carolina and across the
country who do not own their interior phone lines but are forced to
pay the phone company for inside wire maintenance are represented in
the matter by Steven L. Wittels and Jeremy Heisler of Sanford
Wittels & Heisler LLP, New York City.
"AT&T is illegally charging many of its land line customers who live
in multi-tenant facilities for unnecessary wire insurance," said Mr.
Wittels. "The company knows from prior litigation and its own
internal investigations that this charge is improper, yet it
continues to charge building tenants like Gloria for these worthless
plans through deceptive sales actions that defraud and rob them of
their hard-earned financial resources. We believe she and the class
have sustained damages of at least $10 million and very likely much
more."
The complaint asks for the certification of two classes, a North
Carolina class and a nationwide class, each comprised of all
residents of residential or commercial property who had an AT&T
account at any time in the past four years and were not responsible
for the maintenance of their residence's interior wire, but were
charged a fee for an Inside Wire plan.
The complaint names AT&T, a Delaware corporation, along with ten of
its unnamed U.S. subsidiaries as defendants. AT&T is a national
telephone and internet service provider with more than $48 billion
in annual revenues.
According to the plaintiffs' legal team, the company's deceptive
actions in marketing and selling interior wire maintenance plans are
particularly egregious because seven years ago, AT&T reached a
Court-approved settlement in California that challenged the
company's assessment of wire protection fees to multi-unit apartment
dwellers like Gloria Girton.
"The company has been on notice since at least 2004 and probably
earlier that it is improper to charge tenants of multi-unit
buildings these fees," said Mr. Wittels.
The filing also attacks arbitration provisions in customers'
contracts that forbid class certification against AT&T. Plaintiff's
complaint alleges that such a provision is procedurally and
substantively unconscionable and should not be enforced.
"AT&T's anti-class action arbitration clause is one-sided, harsh and
oppressive," said Jeremy Heisler, Plaintiff's Co-Counsel. "The
clause has two unsavory purposes: first, to prevent aggrieved
customers from joining with other class members to fight the
colossal phone company in court, and second, to allow AT&T to fatten
its coffers with millions of dollars of unwarranted fees without
fear that customers can win redress in court. A class action such
as this is the only way that consumers with limited financial
resources who have suffered relatively small damages can effectively
get any justice."
Sanford Wittels & Heisler is partnered in the wire suit with local
counsel Gary Jackson of Jackson & McGee, a well-known consumer fraud
firm based in Charlotte, North Carolina.
About SWH
Sanford Wittels & Heisler is a law firm with offices in Washington,
D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in employment
discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex corporate class
action litigation and has represented thousands of individuals in
some of the major class action cases in the United States. The firm
also represents individual clients in employment, employment
discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower, public
accommodations, commercial, medical malpractice, and personal injury
matters.
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Criden & Love, P.A. disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
was filed on March 22, 2011 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Bank of
America Corporation common stock during the period between July 1,
2008 and Oct. 19, 2010, inclusive. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 4, 2011. You
need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
possible recovery.
This action seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under. The defendants are BAC, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Countrywide Financial Corporation, Brian T.
Moynihan, Charles H. Noski, Kenneth D. Lewis, and Joseph L. Price.
Prior to its acquisition by BAC, Countrywide was one of the world's
largest residential mortgage lenders. As has now been widely
reported, Countrywide's mortgage lending and servicing practices
were rife with fraud, predatory tactics, and other misconduct. This
action alleges that BAC adopted these practices and concealed
material information and made false and misleading statements
concerning the same, which artificially inflated the price of BAC
stock until the truth was revealed.
Any member of the alleged class may seek to be appointed as lead
plaintiff, even if that person has not filed a complaint, by
complying with the relevant provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)
(A)(I)-(iv). The Plaintiff -- Patricia Grossberg Living Trust --
seeks to recover damages on behalf of the class and is represented
by Criden & Love, P.A., a firm with a strong background and
significant experience in handling securities class actions and
other complex litigation. If you have any questions about this
Notice, the action, or your rights, please contact us at http:
http://www.cridenlove.com/
CONTACT: Kevin Love, Esq.
Criden & Love, P.A.
Telephone: +1-305-357-9000
BARCLAYS BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays PLC and various current and former
members of Barclays PLC's Board of Directors have been named as
defendants in five proposed securities class actions (which have
been consolidated) pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended
complaint, dated February 12, 2010, alleges that the registration
statements relating to American Depositary Shares representing
Preferred Stock, Series 2, 3,4 and 5 (ADS) offered by Barclays Bank
PLC at various times between 2006 and 2008 contained misstatements
and omissions concerning (amongst other things) Barclays portfolio
of mortgage-related (including US subprime-related) securities,
Barclays exposure to mortgage and credit market risk and Barclays
financial condition. The consolidated amended complaint asserts
claims under Sections 11,12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933. On January 5, 2011, the Court issued an order, and on January
7, 2011, judgment was entered, granting the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety and closing the case. On
February 4, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to
reconsider in part its dismissal order, and that motion is pending.
Barclays considers that these ADS-related claims against it are
without merit and is defending them vigorously. It is not possible
to estimate any possible loss in relation to these claims or any
effect that they might have upon operating results in any particular
financial period, according to the Company's March 21, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Magistrates Not Certified, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action on
behalf of people who appeared before Birmingham municipal
magistrates claims the city let some magistrates preside without
timely enrolling in the state's magistrate certification course, as
required by law.
A copy of the Complaint in Chappell v. City of Birmingham, Alabama,
et al., Case No. CV-2011-900947 (Ala. Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/22/CivRts.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James S. Roberts, Jr., Esq.
TOWNES, WOODS, & ROBERTS, PC
717 Kerr Drive
P.O. Box 96
Gardendale, AL 35071
Telephone: 205-631-4019
BLUE CROSS: Sued Over Illegal Midyear Changes to Deductibles
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court claims Blue Cross of California dba Anthem
Blue Cross made illegal, midyear changes to deductibles and
benefits.
CHINA SHENGHUO: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. disclosed on
March 22 that a settlement agreement resolving and dismissing all
claims asserted against the company in the consolidated class action
lawsuit, Varghese, et al. v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings,
Inc., et al., has been given final approval by the court. The
substantive allegations of the amended consolidated complaint have
previously been summarized in SEC disclosures by China Shenghuo.
China Shenghuo is contributing US $200,000 towards a total
settlement fund of $600,000.
In settling and resolving all claims on a class basis, China
Shenghuo has not admitted any wrongdoing and the settlement avoids
the costs of continued litigation.
About China Shenghuo
Founded in 1995, China Shenghuo -- http://www.shenghuo.com.cn/--
is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the research,
development, manufacture and marketing of Sanchi-based medicinal and
pharmaceutical, nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.
Through its subsidiary, Kunming Shenghuo Pharmaceutical (Group) Co.,
Ltd., it owns thirty SFDA (State Food and Drug Administration)
approved medicines, including the flagship product Xuesaitong Soft
Capsules, which is currently being listed in the 2010 Provincial
Insurance Catalogue of sixteen provinces and remains to be listed in
the 2009 Provincial Insurance Catalogue of three provinces around
China. At present, China Shenghuo incorporates a sales network of
agencies and representatives throughout China, which markets
Sanchi-based traditional Chinese medicine to hospitals and drug
stores as prescription and OTC drugs primarily for the treatment of
cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and peptic ulcer disease. The
Company also exports medicinal products to Asian countries such as
Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, and Thailand and to European
countries such as the United Kingdom, Tajikistan, Russia and
Kyrgyzstan.
GENERAL MOTORS: Claim in Warranty Class Suit Pegged at $8.8MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company, et al., fka General Motors Corp., et
al., ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York to approve an agreement it reached with class action plaintiff
Jason Anderson, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
resolving the Plaintiff's Proof of Claim No. 51093.
Under the Agreement, the Anderson Proof of Claim will be resolved
and the Participating Anderson Class Members will receive, in the
aggregate, a single allowed general unsecured claim against Motors
Liquidation in the amount of $8,853,300.
The deal is based on a previous settlement reached in a class action
lawsuit brought by Mr. Anderson, on behalf of himself and the
Anderson Class against General Motors Corporation on May 18, 2004,
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging, among other things, that GM violated the Unfair
Competition Law by creating an adjustment program under the Motor
Vehicle Warranty Adjustment Programs statute, allegedly without
providing the Anderson Class with certain notices and repair
reimbursements.
On May 18, 2004, Mr. Anderson filed a class action complaint against
GM on behalf of himself and the Anderson Class in the California
Court, alleging that certain Silverado trucks exhibit an abnormal
engine knock or piston noise. Mr. Anderson further alleged that GM
knew about this condition and that GM had a business policy under
which it provided certain benefits, including a 6 year/100,000
General Motors Protection Plan to California owners and lessees of
Silverados who complained to GM about the condition. Mr. Anderson
asserted that GM's business policy to offer a GMPP or other benefit
to some consumers, but not others, who own or lease a Silverado with
an abnormal engine knock or piston noise condition was an adjustment
program or "secret warranty" that violates California law,
including, specifically, the California MVWAP, because GM allegedly
did not notify Mr. Anderson or the Anderson Class about the
adjustment program or provide them with coverage under the plan.
Following substantial discovery, law and motion practice, class
certification having been granted, a writ petition as to the form
and notice of class certification having been denied, and two
separate mandatory settlement conferences before a California state
judge, GM and the Anderson Class reached a comprehensive claims-made
stipulation of settlement of the Anderson Class Action.
Under the terms of the prior settlement, GM will reimburse class
members who submitted valid, timely claims for: (i) monies spent on
the purchase of a GMPP that otherwise would have been available to
them for free under GM's allegedly unlawful adjustment program; and
(ii) repair costs paid by class members to correct the abnormal
engine knock or piston noise or on other specified engine repairs.
GM also agreed that certain members of the Anderson Class with
constant engine knock or piston noise concerns could request a free
evaluation from a Chevrolet dealer and, if appropriate, obtain free
repairs of the condition.
On Nov. 25, 2009, the Anderson Proof of Claim, based on the
Anderson Class Action Settlement, was filed with the Court,
purportedly on behalf of the Anderson Class, and assigned claim
number 51093. The Anderson Proof of Claim asserts a claim in the
amount of $10 million, for class consideration allegedly due
pursuant to the Anderson Class Action Settlement.
On Dec. 1, 2009, the Court approved and entered the stipulation and
order between the Debtors and the holders of Unliquidated Dex-Cool
and Anderson Claims to allow class proofs of claim for Dex-Cool and
Anderson Claimants and through which the Debtors and the holders of
Unliquidated Anderson Claims agreed that Class Counsel could file a
class-wide proof of claim on behalf of all holders of Unliquidated
Anderson Claims.
About General Motors
With its global headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors
Company -- http://www.gm.com/-- is one of the world's largest
automakers. GM employs 205,000 people in every major region of
the world and does business in some 157 countries. GM and its
strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 31 countries, and
sell and service these vehicles through the following brands:
Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, FAW, GMC, Daewoo, Holden, Jiefang,
Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling. GM's largest national market is China,
followed by the United States, Brazil, Germany, the United
Kingdom, Canada, and Italy. GM's OnStar subsidiary is the
industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information
services.
General Motors Co. is 60.8% owned by the U.S. Government. It was
formed to acquire the operations of General Motors Corporation
through a sale under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363 following Old GM's
bankruptcy filing. The deal was closed on July 10, 2009, and Old
GM changed its name to Motors Liquidation Co. Old GM remains
subject to a pending Chapter 11 reorganization case before the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
At Sept. 30, 2010, GM had US$137.238 billion in total assets,
US$106.522 billion in total liabilities, US$6.998 billion in
preferred stock, US$971 million in non-controlling interest, and
US$23.718 billion in total equity.
New GM has a 'BB-' corporate credit rating from Standard & Poor's
and a 'BB-' issuer default rating from Fitch.
About Motors Liquidation
General Motors Corporation and three of its affiliates filed for
Chapter 11 protection on June 1, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case
No. 09-50026). The Honorable Robert E. Gerber presides over the
Chapter 11 cases. Harvey R. Miller, Esq., Stephen Karotkin, Esq.,
and Joseph H. Smolinsky, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,
assist the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Al Koch at AP
Services, LLC, an affiliate of AlixPartners, LLP, serves as the
Chief Executive Officer for Motors Liquidation Company. GM is
also represented by Jenner & Block LLP and Honigman Miller
Schwartz and Cohn LLP as counsel. Cravath, Swaine, & Moore LLP is
providing legal advice to the GM Board of Directors. GM's
financial advisors are Morgan Stanley, Evercore Partners and the
Blackstone Group LLP. Garden City Group is the claims and notice
agent of the Debtors.
The U.S. Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors and a separate Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Holding Asbestos-Related Claims. Lawyers at Kramer Levin Naftalis
& Frankel LLP serve as bankruptcy counsel to the Creditors
Committee. Attorneys at Butzel Long serve as counsel regarding
supplier contract matters. FTI Consulting, Inc., serves as
financial advisors to the Creditors Committee. Elihu Inselbuch,
Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, represents the Asbestos
Committee. Legal Analysis Systems, Inc., serves as asbestos
valuation analyst.
GEORGIA: Faces Class Action Over Child Support Jail Time
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a civil rights group has filed a
class action lawsuit that aims to secure lawyers for indigent
parents who have been jailed or are in danger of being jailed for
failing to pay child support.
The lawsuit was filed on March 22 in Fulton County Superior Court by
the Southern Center for Human Rights on behalf of six parents who
couldn't pay child support amid the tough economic times. Several of
the plaintiffs have been jailed for months because they cannot pay
the fee.
The lawsuit said Georgia law bans authorities from jailing a parent
who doesn't have the ability to pay child support. But it says the
plaintiffs don't have the opportunity to prove they are indigent
because they don't have an attorney.
GOOGLE INC: Court Rejects $125MM Accord Over Copyright Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Helft, writing for The New York Times, reports that Google's
ambition to create the world's largest digital library and bookstore
has run into the reality of a 300-year-old legal concept: copyright.
Judge Denny Chin said the legal settlement with publishers and
authors would have granted Google a "de facto monopoly."
The company's plan to digitize every book ever published and make
them widely available was derailed on March 22 when a federal judge
in New York rejected a sweeping $125 million legal settlement the
company had worked out with groups representing authors and
publishers.
The decision throws into legal limbo one of the most ambitious
undertakings in Google's history, and it brings into sharp focus
concerns about the company's growing power over information. While
the profit potential of the book project is not clear, the effort is
one of the pet projects of Larry Page, the Google
co-founder who is set to become its chief executive next month. And
the project has wide support inside the company, whose corporate
mission is to organize all of the world's information.
"It was very much consistent with Larry's idealism that all of the
world's information should be made available freely," said Ken
Auletta, the author of "Googled: The End of the World as We Know
It."
But citing copyright, antitrust and other concerns, Judge Denny Chin
said that the settlement went too far. He said it would have
granted Google a "de facto monopoly" and the right to profit from
books without the permission of copyright owners.
Judge Chin acknowledged that "the creation of a universal digital
library would benefit many," but said that the proposed agreement
was "not fair, adequate and reasonable." He left open the
possibility that a substantially revised agreement could pass legal
muster. Judge Chin was recently elevated to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but handled the case as a
district court judge.
The decision is also a setback for the Authors Guild and the
Association of American Publishers, which sued Google in 2005 over
its book-scanning project. After two years of painstaking
negotiations, the authors, publishers and Google signed a sweeping
settlement that would have brought millions of printed works into
the digital age.
The deal turned Google, the authors and the publishers into allies
instead of opponents. Together, they mounted a defense of the
agreement against an increasingly vocal chorus of opponents that
included Google rivals like Amazon and Microsoft, as well as
academics, some authors, copyright experts, the Justice Department
and foreign governments.
Now the author and publisher groups have to decide whether to resume
their copyright case against Google, drop it or try to negotiate a
new settlement.
Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild, said in an
interview that it was too early to tell what the next step would be.
"The judge did expressly leave the door open for a revised
settlement," he said.
Hilary Ware, managing counsel at Google, said in a statement that
the decision was "clearly disappointing," adding: "Like many others,
we believe this agreement has the potential to open up access to
millions of books that are currently hard to find in the U.S.
today." The company would not comment further.
Google has already scanned some 15 million books. The entire text
of books whose copyrights have expired are available through
Google's Book Search service. It shows up to 20% of copyrighted
titles that it has licensed from publishers, and only snippets of
copyrighted titles for which it has no license.
The settlement would have allowed it to go much further, making
millions of out-of-print books broadly available online and selling
access to them. It would have given authors and publishers new ways
to earn money from digital copies of their works.
Yet the deal faced strong opposition. Among the most persistent
objections, raised by the Justice Department and others, were
concerns that it would have given Google exclusive rights to profit
from millions of so-called orphan works, books whose rights holders
are unknown or cannot be found. They also said no other company
would be able to build a comparable library, leaving Google free to
charge high prices for its collection. And some critics said the
exclusive access to millions of books would help cement Google's
grip on the Internet search market.
Judge Chin largely agreed with the critics on those points. But he
suggested that substantial objections would be eliminated if the
settlement applied only to books whose authors or copyright owners
would explicitly "opt in" to its terms.
When the Justice Department suggested as much last year during a
court hearing, Google rejected the idea as unworkable. It would
leave millions of orphan works out of the agreement and out of
Google's digital library, greatly diminishing its value to Google
and to the public.
"Opt-in doesn't look all that different from ordinary licensing
deals that publishers do all the time," said James Grimmelmann, a
professor at New York Law School who has studied the legal aspects
of the agreement. "That's why this has been such a big deal -- the
settlement could have meant orphan books being made available again.
This is basically going back to status quo, and orphan books won't
be available."
Some longtime opponents of the settlement hailed the decision,
saying that they hoped it would prompt Congress to tackle
legislation that would make orphan works accessible.
"Even though it is efficient for Google to make all the books
available, the orphan works and unclaimed books problem should be
addressed by Congress, not by the private settlement of a lawsuit,"
said Pamela Samuelson, a copyright expert at the University of
California, Berkeley who helped organize efforts to block the
agreement.
Gina Talamona, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in a statement
that the court had reached the "right result."
A group of publishers said they were disappointed by the decision,
but believed that it provided "clear guidance" on the changes
necessary for the settlement to be approved.
John Sargent, the chief executive of Macmillan, spoke on behalf of
the publishers, which included Penguin Group USA, McGraw-Hill,
Pearson Education, Simon & Schuster and John Wiley & Sons.
"The publisher plaintiffs are prepared to enter into a narrower
settlement along those lines to take advantage of its groundbreaking
opportunities," Mr. Sargent said in a statement. "
We hope the other parties will do so as well."
He added: "The publisher plaintiffs are prepared to modify the
settlement agreement to gain approval. We plan to work together
with Google, the Authors Guild and others to overcome the objections
raised by the court and promote the fundamental principle behind our
lawsuit, that copyrighted content cannot be used without the
permission of the owner, or outside the law."
INTERCLICK INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bose" Suits in New York Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
interclick, inc.'s motions to dismiss class action lawsuits filed by
Sonal Bose alleging breach of electronic privacy laws, among others,
remain pending, according to the Company's March 21, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
On or about December 8, 2010, Sonal Bose commenced an action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that interclick engaged in certain activities that
plaintiff claims violate electronic privacy and computer use laws.
The plaintiff asserts federal and state law claims, and seeks
compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, and
reimbursement of expenses and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff also
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and class action
certification.
On or about December 23, 2010, Sonal Bose commenced a related action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against McDonald's Corporation, CBS Corporation, Mazda Motor of
America, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (Sonal Bose v. McDonald's
Corporation; CBS Corporation; Mazda Motor of America, Inc.; and
Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 10 Civ. 9569-DAB (S.D.N.Y.))
alleging that the actions of interclick caused the defendants to
violate various laws and seeking class action certification. The
Company is not a party to this action but are providing for the
defense of the case at the Company's expense based upon
indemnification obligations in its standard agency agreements. The
complaint asserts the same claims as are alleged in the complaint
against the Company, together with a cause of action for tortious
interference, and seeks similar relief.
On February 28, 2011, motions to dismiss each of the cases were
filed, which are pending. As noted in the motions to dismiss,
interclick believes the cases are entirely without merit and
interclick intends to vigorously defend its prior practices and
technology.
IPAYMENT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Green" Suit in New York Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
iPayment, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit captioned
L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.,
Online Data Corporation, and iPayment, Inc., United States District
Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 09CV05679-RJD-SMG,
remains pending, according to the Company's March 21, 2011, Form 10
-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
The matter relates to a purported class action lawsuit initially
filed by plaintiff L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes in December 2009 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, naming
the Company and one of the Company's subsidiaries, Online Data
Corporation, and Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. as defendants. The
First Amended Class Action Complaint, as amended and filed on
September 8, 2010, asserts claims for unjust enrichment and for a
declaratory judgment. In October 2010 the Company filed a motion to
dismiss count one (unjust enrichment) of plaintiff's FAC, and
plaintiff filed an opposition to the Company's motion. As of
March 21, 2011, the court has not issued a ruling on the Company's
motion to dismiss nor has it set a hearing date for the Company's
motion to dismiss. At this time, the Company cannot predict with any
certainty how the court might rule on the Company's motion to
dismiss.
The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend itself
and believe that the Company has meritorious defenses to the claims
asserted, however, at this time the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit
and the Company's potential liability associated with the claims
asserted against the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, and
there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in the
Company's defense or that a failure to prevail will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition or results of operations.
ITURAN LOCATION: Faces Discrimination Class Action in Tel-Aviv
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location and Control Ltd. disclosed that on March 21, 2011,
Ituran Location and Control Ltd. received a purported class action
lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court of
Central Region in Tel-Aviv, by one plaintiff who is a subscriber of
the Company, alleging that the Company, which was declared a
monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices Law, 1988,
unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and discriminated between
its customers.
The plaintiff claims that the alleged discrimination resulted from
the Company charging higher monthly subscription fees from customers
who are obliged by insurance company requirements to install
location and recovery systems in their vehicles than the monthly
subscription fees that are charged from customers who are not
required by insurance companies to install location and recovery
systems in their vehicles.
The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total
amount claimed if the lawsuit is certified as a class action was
estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS75 million.
Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, the Company believes that
the lawsuit lacks substantiation, includes incorrect assumptions and
inconsistent claims and that the Company has good defense arguments
in respect of claims made by the plaintiff.
Notwithstanding, at this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to
assess the lawsuit's chances of success.
About Ituran
Ituran -- http://www.ituran.com/-- provides location-based
services, consisting predominantly of stolen vehicle recovery and
tracking services, as well as wireless communications products used
in connection with its location-based services and various other
applications. Ituran offers mobile asset location, Stolen Vehicle
Recovery, management & control services for vehicles, cargo and
personal security. Ituran's subscriber base has been growing
significantly since the Company's inception to over 604,000
subscribers distributed globally. Established in 1995, Ituran has
over 1,300 employees worldwide, provides its location based services
and has a market leading position in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and
the United States.
J.CREW GROUP: Still Defends Class Suits Over TPG Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
J. Crew Group, Inc., is still defending itself against class action
lawsuits over its acquisition by affiliates of TPG Capital, L.P. and
Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., according to the Company's March 21,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.
In connection with the Acquisition, between November 24, 2010 and
December 16, 2010, sixteen purported class action complaints were
filed against some or all of the following: the Company, certain
officers of the Company, members of the Company's board of directors
(the "Board of Directors" or "Board"), Holdings, the Issuer, TPG,
TPG Fund VI and LGP. The plaintiffs in each of these complaints
allege, among other things, (1) that certain officers of the Company
and members of the Company's Board breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company's public stockholders by authorizing the Acquisition
for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process,
and (2) that the Company, TPG and LGP aided and abetted the other
defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The purported class
action complaints sought, among other things, an order enjoining the
consummation of the Acquisition or an order rescinding the
Acquisition and an award of compensatory damages.
Between November 24, 2010 and December 8, 2010, seven purported
class action complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery. On December 14, 2010, these cases were consolidated into a
single action, captioned In re J.Crew Group, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 6043-VCS. On January 16, 2011, the Company
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the other parties in
the Delaware Action providing for the settlement of all claims
asserted in the Delaware Action against the Company and the other
defendants. The MOU was agreed to by the Company and the other
defendants pending the execution of a more formal settlement
agreement and provides for, among other things, a one-time
settlement payment of $10 million by J. Crew or its insurers to be
distributed pro rata among the members of the class of Company
shareholders on whose behalf the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action
purport to act. Once the MOU was signed, the parties removed from
the Court's docket a preliminary injunction hearing that had been
scheduled for February 24, 2011. By letter dated January 31, 2011,
the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action attempted to repudiate the MOU
and informed the Court that they were no longer in a position to
support or pursue the settlement and indicated that they intended to
seek monetary damages following a trial. By letter dated February 1,
2011, the defendants informed the Court that they believe they have
honored their obligations under the MOU and that they intend to seek
specific performance of the MOU. The court held a conference on
February 11, 2011, during which it stated that it would not
entertain any applications in the litigation until after the
shareholder vote. If the MOU is not enforced, the Company intends to
defend against the allegations asserted in the Delaware Action
vigorously. On March 4, 2011, one of the plaintiffs in the Federal
Actions filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware Action, which
seeks to replace the current putative class representatives in the
Delaware Action. In addition, the parties in the Delaware Action
submitted status reports to the Court, which advised the Court of
the results of the shareholder vote and included the parties'
proposals on how the litigation should proceed. On March 15, 2011,
the Chancery Court held a scheduling conference during which it
ordered the parties to confer on a schedule for trial on the
enforceability of the MOU by late August or September.
Between November 24, 2010 and December 16, 2010, seven purported
class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York. Those complaints are captioned respectively as Church
v. J.Crew Group, Inc., et al., No. 652101-2010; Taki v. J.Crew
Group, Inc., et al., No. 65125-2010; Weisenberg v. J.Crew Group,
Inc., et al., No. 10115564-2010; Hekstra v. J.Crew Group, Inc., et
al., No. 652175-2010; St. Louis v. J.Crew Group, Inc., et al., No.
652201-2010; Peoria Police Pension Fund v. Drexler, et al., No.
652239-2010; KBC Asset Management NV v. J.Crew Group, Inc., et al.,
No. 6522870-2010. On December 16, 2010, certain of the plaintiffs in
the New York Actions filed an Order to Show Cause seeking
consolidation of all of the New York Actions, as well as the
appointment of certain lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December
20, the defendants opposed that Order to Show Cause, and moved to
dismiss the New York Actions or, alternatively, to stay the New York
Actions in favor of the Delaware Action. On December 30, certain
other plaintiffs in the New York Actions filed a separate Order to
Show Cause seeking consolidation of all of the New York Actions and
the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The defendants
opposed that order to show cause and moved to dismiss or stay the
New York Actions in favor of the Delaware proceedings. On January
13, 2011, the court in the New York Actions ruled that the New York
Actions will be stayed indefinitely in favor of the Delaware Action.
On February 15, 2011, the New York plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal of the order granting the stay. On February 17, 2011, the New
York plaintiffs submitted to the New York court an Order to Show
Cause seeking to vacate the stay of the New York Actions,
consolidate all of the New York Actions, enjoin the shareholder vote
scheduled for March 1, 2011, and direct a hearing on the plaintiffs'
claims. At a hearing on February 24, 2011, the New York court denied
the plaintiffs' request to enjoin the shareholder vote, and denied
the plaintiffs' request to lift the stay of proceedings except to
order the seven cases consolidated and appoint the plaintiffs'
agreed-upon lead plaintiff structure. The cases otherwise remain
stayed.
On December 1, 2010, a purported class action complaint, captioned
Brazin v. J.Crew Group, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 8988, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On December 14, 2010, another purported class action complaint,
captioned Caywood v. Drexler, No. 10 Civ. 9328, was also filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The plaintiffs in the Federal Actions assert claims that are
largely duplicative of the claims asserted in the Delaware and New
York Actions, but also allege that the defendants violated multiple
federal securities statutes in connection with the filing of the
Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A. On December 21, the
defendants moved to stay the Federal Actions pending the resolution
of the Delaware Action or, alternatively, to enforce the automatic
stay provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
The Company has notified its insurers of each of the Delaware
Action, the New York Actions, and the Federal Actions. The Company
believes that any and all costs, expenses, and/or losses associated
with the lawsuits are covered by its applicable insurance policies.
By letter dated January 26, 2011, the Company's primary directors
and officers liability insurer, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company,
stated that the claims asserted in the Delaware Action, the New York
Actions, and the Federal Actions appeared to be claims against
insured persons that would be covered by the applicable insurance
policy, but identified potential defenses, exclusions, and
limitations to coverage that it believed might apply, subject to
reviewing additional information. The Company believes that any and
all costs, expenses and/or losses associated with the Delaware
Action, the New York Actions, and the Federal Actions are covered by
its applicable insurance policies, and will pursue all available
remedies and rights with respect to insurance coverage.
Although the Company, the Company's Board, TPG, and LGP have entered
into the MOU to settle the Delaware Action, they believe that the
claims asserted in that action, as well as the claims asserted in
the New York Actions and the Federal Actions, are without merit and
intend to defend against the New York and Federal Actions
vigorously. The Company has recorded a reserve for litigation
settlement of $10 million in the consolidated financial statements
as of and for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.
Certain stockholders, including funds affiliated with Mason Capital
Management LLC, have purported to assert appraisal rights under
Delaware law with respect to approximately 4.8 million shares of
Company common stock. The equity purchase price related to these
shares was not distributed at closing of the Acquisition, and
therefore will be held by the Company until such appraisal rights
proceedings are resolved. The Company intends to defend this matter
vigorously.
JONES SODA CO: Plaintiffs Did Not File Petition for Review
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs of a dismissed consolidated securities lawsuit
against Jones Soda Co. did not file a petition for review after
their appeal to file an amended complaint was turned down, according
to the Company's March 21, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.
On September 4, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company, its then serving chief executive officer, and
its then serving chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The case was
entitled Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al., Case No.
07-cv-1366-RSL, and purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period March 9,
2007 to August 2, 2007. Six substantially similar complaints
subsequently were filed in the same court, some of which alleged
claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period November 1, 2006 to August 2, 2007. Some of
the subsequently filed complaints added as defendants certain
current and former directors and another former officer of the
Company. The complaints generally alleged violations of federal
securities laws based on, among other things, false and misleading
statements and omissions about the Company's financial results and
business prospects. The complaints sought unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. On October 26, 2007,
these seven lawsuits were consolidated as a single action entitled
In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366
-RSL. On March 5, 2008, the Court appointed Robert Burrell lead
plaintiff in the consolidated securities case. On May 5, 2008, the
lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint, which
purports to allege claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period of January 10, 2007, to May
1, 2008, against the Company and Peter van Stolk, the Company's
former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of the Board, and
former director. The First Amended Consolidated Complaint generally
alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among other
things, false and misleading statements and omissions about the
Company's agreements with retailers, allocation of resources, and
business prospects. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on July 7, 2008. After hearing oral argument on February
3, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety on
February 9, 2009. Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend
their complaint on March 25, 2009. On June 22, 2009, the Court
issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and
dismissed the case with prejudice. On July 7, 2009, the Court
entered judgment in favor of the Company and Mr. van Stolk. On
August 5, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's
order dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend, and the resulting July 7, 2009 judgment. The
parties' briefing on the appeal was completed on March 4, 2010, and
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on July 15,
2010. On August 30, 2010, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the
denial of plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend. On September 20, 2010, plaintiffs filed a petition
for rehearing of their appeal by the full Ninth Circuit. On October
20, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for review by the U.S.
Supreme Court, and the time for doing so has passed.
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Cold Remedy Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Fox, writing for NationalJournal, reports that investors can
file a class action lawsuit against the makers of a cold remedy that
snuffed out the sense of smell in some people who used it, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled on March 22.
The high court ruled unanimously in favor of investors in Matrixx
Initiatives Inc, which made an over-the-counter product called Zicam
Cold Remedy. The zinc-based nasal spray and gel product accounted
for about 70% of Matrixx's sales.
In 2009, U.S. regulators told Matrixx to stop selling two intra-
nasal forms of Zicam after complaints it made some people lose their
sense of smell. Matrixx did pull those versions of Zicam but
claimed the product was safe. Investors found out that researchers
had in fact reported the risk of the problem, known as anosmia, in
2000.
A group of investors sued Matrixx for a "material" misrepresentation
and omission under federal securities law. In the March 22ruling,
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Matrixx knew better. "This is not a
case about a handful of anecdotal reports, as Matrixx suggests,"
Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Matrixx received information that
plausibly indicated a reliable causal link between Zicam and
anosmia. That information included reports from three medical
professionals and researchers about more than 10 patients who had
lost their sense of smell after using Zicam."
Drugmakers had argued they could be forced to release thousands of
meaningless complaints if the Supreme Court sided with Matrixx. But
the ruling "does not mean that pharmaceutical manufacturers must
disclose all reports of adverse events," Justice Sotomayor wrote,
according to Reuters.
NEW ORLEANS, LA: April 15 Hearing for Property Tax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for the Louisiana Record, reports
that a hearing in Orleans Parish Civil District Court that would
determine the fate of a possible class action against the City of
New Orleans has been continued to April 15.
The lawsuit, brought on by New Orleans residents Jimmie Jackson,
Simms Hardin and their business KSD Properties LLC, challenges City
Ordinance No. 22207, which imposes penalties and attorney and
collection fees on residents who are late paying property taxes.
New Orleans attorney Allain Hardin filed the suit on behalf of KSD
in May 2009.
Hardin's firm, Fransen & Hardin APLC, sued the city for the illegal
collection of fees in 2008. In that suit, residents were assessed a
3% penalty by the city and a 30 percent attorney-collection fee.
In the Fransen & Hardin suit, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled it
unconstitutional for the city to impose and collect the penalties
and fees.
As a result of the ruling, New Orleans issued the city ordinance
that KSD is now challenging. The new law charged residents a 10
percent penalty on property taxes for late payment as well as a 9.5
percent "attorney/collection fee."
The City of New Orleans is arguing that what they charged residents
were taxes and were not unconstitutional.
"The City of New Orleans fee and the outside collectors fee are not
penal in nature but are in fact designed to cover the cost of
collections from the chronically delinquent taxpayer and hence would
not be unconstitutional," city attorneys argued in opposition to the
plaintiffs.
The city has filed a motion for peremptory exception of no cause of
action, stating that there are no damages at issue because the
additional taxes imposed on late payments are not unconstitutional.
The city also filed a motion to transfer and consolidate this case
with the Francis & Hardin suit.
Plaintiff attorneys claim that by seeking consolidation, New Orleans
"is telling this Court that toes charges imposed by City Ordinance
No. 22207 are the same as the Ordinance that was declared
unconstitutional (Ordinance No. 18637)."
Consolidating the cases will also create a conflict of interest
because the same counsel was being paid attorney/collection fees
under both ordinances, the plaintiffs claim. In the Fransen &
Hardin case, the city filed a cross claim against its counsel saying
it was liable for returning any unconstitutional fees.
"If counsel is going to be consistent, then he will have to file a
cross claim over and against his own law firm in this case for the
attorney/collection fee his law firm is paid," the plaintiffs argue.
"One could understand that counsel would be hesitant to push any
cross claims given that he may be impacting his own pocketbook. Who
is going to watch out for the City?"
The firm Linebarger, Goggan, Blair, Pena & Sampson LLP was retained
by the city and charges the attorney/collection fee on residents.
New Orleans attorneys Lawrence Jones and Errol Conley are
representing the city in this case.
Orleans Parish Judge Herbert Cade will oversee the next hearing in
this suit scheduled for April 15.
Orleans Parish Case 2009-05493
PERDUE INC: Class Action to Move Forward in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Mirabella, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a
federal class action lawsuit accusing managers at Perdue Inc. of
conspiring to depress wages by hiring hundreds of illegal immigrants
will move forward in Maryland instead of in Alabama, where it was
filed a year ago.
The lawsuit against former and current human resource employees and
supervisors of the Eastern Shore poultry processor was filed last
March on behalf of hundreds or even thousands of hourly workers at
16 Perdue plants in Maryland and nine other states.
A U.S. District Court judge in Alabama granted the defendants'
request to move the case to Maryland, where the company has its
headquarters in Salisbury.
"A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred
at the Perdue headquarters in Maryland," the judge, Mark E. Fuller,
said in the opinion.
The case will be heard in U.S. District Court in Baltimore by Judge
Richard D. Bennett. A trial has not yet been set.
The named plaintiffs -- Perdue employees at processing plants in
Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee -- accuse company supervisors of
organizing a hiring scheme in which human resources staff are told
to accept fake work authorization documents or to lie about the
existence of such documents. By doing so, Perdue has hired more
than 500 undocumented workers in the past four years, the lawsuit
said. The alleged scheme, which would violate the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, has increased
Perdue's profitability and allowed defendants to earn higher wages,
the lawsuit claims.
A spokesman for Perdue, the third-largest poultry company in the
United States, said on March 22 that the company, which was not
named as a defendant, continues to maintain that the lawsuit is
without merit.
In a statement posted on the company's website last April, Perdue
says it hires only workers who prove they are authorized to work in
the United States and trains human resources staff extensively in
procedures to verify employment eligibility.
"We go the extra step of electronically verifying Social Security
numbers and work authorization numbers against government records,
and have been participating in the government's E-Verify program and
its predecessor for more than a decade," the statement says. "If we
find at any time that an associate has presented false
documentation, we terminate that person's employment."
Howard W. Foster, an attorney for the named plaintiffs, said Tuesday
he did not expect the change of venue to affect the case.
"We want to pursue our case as promptly as we can," Mr. Foster said.
Plaintiffs are asking the court to require the firing of any illegal
immigrants at Perdue, and are also seeking judgment in an amount
three times the damages caused by illegal hiring.
An attorney for one of the 15 named defendants declined to comment
on the case on March 22.
RANGE RESOURCES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that an Erie federal judge has
approved a class-action settlement between a Texas-based gas firm
drilling in the Marcellus shale and about 25,000 Pennsylvania
landowners.
U.S. District Judge Sean McLaughlin approved a settlement -- which
was agreed upon last year -- that gives the landowners about $1.3
million initially and increases their royalties by an estimated
$16.6 million over the next five years. The attorneys for the
landowners would receive $437,500 initially and $4.2 million over
the next five years.
The landowners claimed in the 2008 lawsuit that Range Resources was
improperly calculating royalty payments. The company denies it was
wrong in the settlement, but agreed to change its methodology.
SHENGDATECH INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against ShengdaTech, Inc. and certain of its officers. The
class action (11 Civ. 1996), pending in the Southern District of New
York, is on behalf of a class of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired ShengdaTech securities during the
period from May 10, 2010 through and including March 14, 2011. The
Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased ShengdaTech securities during
the Class Period and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the
class, you have until May 17, 2011 to ask the Court to seek
appointment from the Court. A copy of the complaint can be obtained
at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/
To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, toll free. Those who inquire by
e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone
number.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, serious discrepancies in
the Company's and its subsidiaries' financial records and the lack
of adequate internal and financial controls resulted in the
Company's issuance of materially false and misleading financial
results at all relevant times.
On March 15, 2011, the Company shocked the market with the
disclosure "that it appointed a special committee of the Board of
Directors to investigate potentially serious discrepancies and
unexplained issues relating to the Company and its subsidiaries'
financial records." Upon this disclosure, Nasdaq halted trading of
ShengdaTech shares at $3.55.
Defendant ShengdaTech manufactures and markets specialty additives.
The Company's nano precipitated calcium carbonate products are sold
to its customers in the tire, polyvinyl chloride building materials,
ink, paint, latex, adhesive, paper and polyethylene industries. The
aggregate number of shares of ShengdaTech securities outstanding as
of November 5, 2010 is approximately 54 million shares.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members.
CONTACT: Rachelle R. Boyle
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
Telephone: 888-476-6529 (ext. 237)
E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com
SLM CORPORATION: Late Fees Violate Calif. Law, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Tina M. Ubaldi, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. SLM Corporation, d/b/a Sallie Mae, Inc.., d/b/a Sallie Mae
Servicing, Case No. 11-cv-01320 (N.D. Calif. March. 18, 2011),
accuses Sallie Mae of unlawfully charging plaintiff and other
California residents who have Private Education Loans originated or
serviced by Sallie Mae a late fee of 5% of the payment amount not
received or $5.00, whichever is greater, each time any payment is
not received by Sallie Mae within 15 days of the scheduled payment
date.
Ms. Ubaldi says this late fee is actually a liquidated damages
penalty, which is unlawful under California law.
Plaintiff says that for a liquidated damages provision such as a
late fee to be lawful, it must be compensatory and not punitive.
Plaintiff explains that Sallie Mae's revenue from late fees far
exceeds the costs it incurs as a result of late payments, and is
therefore punitive.
Sallie Mae services federally guaranteed education loans, as well as
Private Education Loans that are not federally guaranteed.
Plaintiff's action only concerns Sallie Mae's servicing of Private
Education Loans. Plaintiff Tina M. Ubaldi is a citizen of the State
of California residing in San Mateo County, Calif., who, on June 24,
2003, entered into a Private Education Loan in the State of
California that has been owned and serviced by Sallie Mae, and was
charged late fees by Sallie Mae on several occasions after March
17, 2007.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 392-8801
E-mail: jlspielberg@jlsp.com
- and -
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
10680 West Pico Blvd., Suite 280
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 836-6000
E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com
- and -
William J. Genego, Esq.
NASATIR, HIRSCH, PODBERESKY KHERO & GENEGO
2115 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: (310) 399-3259
E-mail: wgenego@gmail.com
- and -
Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
Edward J. Feinstein, Esq.
STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE, LLC
Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
429 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
efeinstein@stemberfeinstein.com
STARBUCKS CORP: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Tip Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
Boston federal judge has certified a Massachusetts class action
against Starbucks Corp. over its tip policy on the same day
plaintiffs appealed a New York federal court's judgment on the same
policy to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
A March 18 order by District Judge Nathaniel Gorton in Matamoros v.
Starbucks Corp. certified a class action against the coffee company
for allegedly violating the Massachusetts Tips Law.
Also on March 18, Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the
plaintiffs in both cases, filed a brief in the 2d Circuit in In re
Starbucks Employee Gratuity Litigation. In that case, name
plaintiffs Jeana Barenboim and Jose Ortiz are appealing District
Judge Laura Taylor Swain's December 2009 summary judgment ruling for
Starbucks.
In the Massachusetts case, Judge Gorton's order accepted two
recommendations by Magistrate Judge Leo Sorokin. His order denied
the defendant's summary judgment motion and granted the plaintiff's
partial summary judgment motion by ruling that Starbucks shift
supervisors are barred by the state's tip laws from receiving any
money from tip pools at the coffeehouse chain.
Hernan Matamoros sued Starbucks in March 2008 in Massachusetts state
court on behalf of baristas who had worked at Starbucks in the prior
six years over its policy of distributing customers' tips to
baristas and shift supervisors.
The case was removed to federal court a couple of months later. Two
other former baristas, Sharon Sam Chan and Kate Petersen,
subsequently joined the case as named plaintiffs.
The Massachusetts Tips Law "is clear on its face," said
Ms. Liss-Riordan of Boston's Lichten & Liss-Riordan. "We are
looking forward to recovering money the Starbucks baristas should
have received because their tip pool was diluted," Ms. Liss-Riordan
said. "The legislature has made clear that the supervisors' pay
should come entirely out of company's pocket and not the tip pool."
Ms. Liss-Riordan also said Judge Gorton "made an apt observation in
affirming the magistrate judge's ruling that denying a class in this
case would be an end run around the tips law, which the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has said is not allowed."
In the case before the 2d Circuit, the plaintiffs' brief argues that
the New York labor law's plain language prohibits wait staff
employees from being required to share tips with supervisors.
Instead of analyzing that language, the brief states that the
district court relied on "prior federal district court decisions
that had erroneously applied the less protective federal law
standard regarding waitstaff's tips under the [Fair Labor Standards
Act]."
Although the New York and Massachusetts laws are written somewhat
differently, "we believe that they should reach the same result,"
Ms. Liss-Riordan said.
"The New York law uses slightly different language that signifies
the same important point that supervisors are not to share in tip
pools," Ms. Liss-Riordan said. "Their money must come entirely from
employers."
Minnesota's federal court dismissed a similar case in December,
Delsing v. Starbucks Coffee Corp., after the parties settled. The
plaintiffs' lawyers at Minneapolis' Nichols Kaster could not be
immediately reached for comment.
Starbucks declined to comment because both the Massachusetts and New
York cases are in active litigation. Lawyers at Akin, Gump,
Strauss, Hauer & Feld who represent Starbucks in the Massachusetts
and New York cases -- and represented the company in the Minnesota
case -- did not return calls for comment.
Baristas won big, then lost at the appellate level, in the best-
known lawsuit against Starbucks for its tips policies. In
June 2009, San Diego's 4th District Court of Appeal overturned an
$86 million verdict for the employees in Chau v. Starbucks Corp. In
that case, the trial court ruled that Starbucks violated
California's unfair competition law by allowing shift supervisors to
share employees' tips.
The award topped $100 million with interest. The appellate court
ruled that Starbucks did not violate state law because shift
supervisors share some of the same duties as baristas and the tips
are gathered collectively and shared equally
A group of assistant store managers have filed a separate New York
federal case, Winans v. Starbucks Corp., asserting that the New York
labor law gives them a right to share tips.
The parties in Winan are finished briefing the court on the class
certification question and expect a ruling in the next several
months, said the plaintiffs' lawyer, Adam Klein, who chairs the
class action practice group at New York employment law firm Outten &
Golden. "We'll proceed after that fact on the merits,"
Mr. Klein said.
U.S. DRUG STORES: Insist W.Va. AG Suit Should Stay in Fed Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that six
prescription drug retailers made their case to a federal appellate
court March 22 that West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw
has filed a class action lawsuit against them.
Those drug stores -- which include CVS, Wal-Mart and Target --
disagree with Mr. McGraw, who says he is representing the interests
of the state in his parens patriae capacity. They claim he is
representing consumers affected by their alleged pricing policies in
a class action, and as such the lawsuit should be heard in federal
court.
Mr. McGraw wants the case remanded to Boone County Circuit Court. He
says the drug stores have not passed savings on generic drugs on to
consumer and has called some of the stores' arguments "weak" and
"absurd."
Mr. McGraw recently notified the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit of two decisions from other jurisdictions this year
that prove his case. A district judge in Charleston, W.Va., has
already ruled for Mr. McGraw.
Mr. McGraw says arguments made by the defendants have been shot down
in a California federal court decision entered on Feb. 15 and in a
Connecticut federal court's decision entered on Jan. 5.
It was written in the California decision that, "The fact that
private parties may benefit from (California's and Washington's)
actions does not negate the states' substantial interests in these
cases."
In Connecticut's case against Moody's Corp., the decision found that
the State was a real party in interest because of its sovereign
interest in enforcing its laws, McGraw's attorneys wrote.
"These on-point decisions strongly and persuasively support the
conclusion that (the Class Action Fairness Act) does not confer
subject matter jurisdiction in this case," wrote John Barrett of
Charleston firm, W.Va., Bailey & Glasser.
In a response filed on March 23, the drug stores disagreed with the
meanings of the decisions.
In the California decision, the complaints sought damages owed to
the respective states and their agencies. "(U)nder the California
statute at issue . . . once damages were paid to the state, the
agencies had discretion to distribute retributive funds to
California consumers, but any excess funds escheated to the state.
By contrast, the West Virginia Credit Consumer Protection Act
requires that any recovered excess charges be paid from the
defendant to consumers directly."
The drug stores say the state of Connecticut had a direct pecuniary
interest in the other lawsuit and that the court concluded that it
had an "interest apart from the interests of particular private
parties."
"Again, in contrast, the WVCCPA directs that restitution payments
are made directly from liable defendants to the private consumers,"
the drug stores wrote. "No share of this restitution award is split
with the state or otherwise funds state agencies.
McGraw hired two private firms -- Bailey & Glasser and DiTrapano
Barrett & DiPiero -- to pursue the case, and another one against
Rite Aid. The two firms have contributed more than $60,000 to
Mr. McGraw's campaign fund over the years, including $11,800 for his
2008 race against Republican Dan Greear.
The pharmacies brought up Mr. McGraw's use of outside counsel in
their appeal brief.
"First, and at the outset, the defendants' premise -- that the
State's use of outside counsel somehow affects the jurisdictional
analysis -- is absurd," Mr. McGraw wrote in response. "The text of
the statute makes no distinction between state enforcement actions
brought exclusively by state attorneys general and actions brought
by attorneys general with the support of private counsel."
John Barrett of Bailey & Glasser argued the case for Mr. McGraw.
The three judges of the Fourth Circuit hearing the appeal are judges
Paul Niemeyer, Andre Davis and Ronald Lee Gilman.
The losing party will have the options of asking for a rehearing of
the issue by the full roster of Fourth Circuit judges or appealing
to the U.S. Supreme Court.
UNITED WESTERN: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of United Western Bancorp, Inc.
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 17,
2009 offering, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J.
MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director of
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980
Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to
info@rigrodskylong.com or via our Web site:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/UnitedWesternBancorp-UWBK
The Complaint names United Western, certain of the Company's current
executive officers and directors, auditors, and investment advisors
as defendants. On Sept. 17, 2009, defendants consummated the
Offering pursuant to a false and misleading registration statement,
selling 20 million shares of United Western common stock at $4.00
per share, for proceeds of $80 million. United Western also
received additional gross proceeds of $7.8 million (1,961,325 shares
issued at $4.00/share) as a result of the partial exercise of the
over-allotment option to purchase additional shares granted to the
underwriters. The registration statement incorporated, among other
documents, United Western's reported financial results and 10-K/A
for 2008 and the reported financial results and 10-Q for the second
quarter of 2009.
The Complaint alleges that the true facts which were omitted from
the registration statement were: (1) United Western's mortgage
backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations were
impaired to a far greater extent than the Company had disclosed; (2)
defendants failed to properly record losses for other than temporary
impairment in United Western's non-agency MBSs and CMOs; (3) the
Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company
from improperly reporting its impaired assets; and (4) the Company's
capital base was not adequate in light of the impairment of its
assets.
United Western ultimately announced multi-million dollar impairments
in its investment securities portfolio, specifically in MBSs and
CMOs, causing the price of its common stock to plummet. In turn, on
Jan. 21, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was
appointed as receiver for United Western Bank by the Office of
Thrift Supervision under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 17, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however,
affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this
matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden
City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and
direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate
governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty
and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state
and federal courts throughout the United States.
Contact: Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Telephone: 888-969-4242
302-295-5310
Fax: 302-654-9430
E-mail: info@rigrodskylong.com
Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com
WAL-MART STORES: To Urge Sup. Ct. Next Week to Junk Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Vicini, writing for Reuters, reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
will urge the Supreme Court next week to reject the largest class-
action sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, brought by female
employees who seek billion of dollars.
The top U.S. court hears arguments on March 29 in a lawsuit against
the world's largest retailer for allegedly giving women less pay and
fewer promotions at 3,400 U.S. stores since late 1998.
Lawyers for the two sides will spar over whether the small group of
women who began the lawsuit 10 years ago can represent a huge
nationwide class of current and former employees that could total
millions of women.
The case has pitted women's and employees' rights against business
interests, with Robin Conrad of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calling
it "the most important class-action case facing the court in over a
decade."
The case will have far-reaching implications for working women who
challenge discrimination, women's rights advocate Marcia Greenberger
of the National Women's Law Center said.
"The ability of women to be treated fairly in the workplace hangs in
the balance," Ms. Greenberger said.
The ruling, expected by late June, could change the legal landscape
for workplace class-action lawsuits and affect many cases, including
a similar one against Costco Wholesale Corp.
Large class-action lawsuits make it easier for big groups of
plaintiffs to sue corporations and they have yielded huge payouts by
tobacco, oil and food companies.
Companies have sought to limit such lawsuits to individual or small
groups of plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that has often ruled
for businesses, has already limited large class-action securities
fraud lawsuits and asbestos cases.
If Wal-Mart wins, the huge class would be undone, though the company
still could face individual discrimination lawsuits. If the workers
win, they would be able to pursue their lawsuit as a collective
group at trial.
Legal experts and financial analysts said Wal-Mart, with more than
$400 billion in sales and $16 billion in net income last year, has
enough cash to make even a big payout if it loses at trial.
"It would take a seismic ruling against the company to have an
impact on the valuation," said R.J. Hottovy, equity analyst at the
Chicago-based Morningstar Inc investment research firm.
MANAGERS ACCUSED OF GOING STRIP CLUBS
The Wal-Mart lawsuit has produced testimony that managers held
business meetings at Hooters restaurants, attended strip clubs and
referred to female employees as "girls," in what plaintiffs lawyers
said was a corporate culture rife with stereotypes demeaning to
women.
Chronology of Key Events
Separately, Reuters' Mr. Vicini reports that the Supreme Court hears
arguments on March 29 in the largest sex-discrimination class-action
lawsuit ever as Wal-Mart Stores Inc's female employees seek billions
of dollars from the giant retailer.
Here is a chronology of key events in the case:
June 19, 2001: Betty Dukes, a Wal-Mart greeter at a store in
Pittsburg, California, and five current or former female employees
file a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco, accusing the
retailer of discriminating against its female employees by paying
them less than men and giving them fewer promotions.
April 28, 2003: Attorneys for the women filed a motion for class
certification and asked the judge to rule the case can go to trial
on behalf of all women who worked for Wal-Mart in the United States
at any time since December 26, 1998, a group believed to exceed 1.5
million current and former female employees.
June 21, 2004: District Judge Martin Jenkins ruled the lawsuit can
proceed as a nationwide class covering the women who worked at 3,400
stores, but did not decide the merits of the lawsuit.
He proposed a two-stage trial. First, the court would decide if
Wal-Mart was liable for intentional sex discrimination. Depending
on the verdict, the second stage would decide remedies, such as back
pay, punitive damages and injunctive relief requiring pay and
promotion changes.
April 26, 2010: A U.S. appeals court based in San Francisco, by a 6
-5 vote, upheld the judge's conclusion that it would be better to
handle the case as a single group rather than requiring individual
lawsuits to be litigated.
August 25, 2010: Wal-Mart appealed to the Supreme Court. It argued
claims involving current and former workers, hourly employees and
salaried managers and stores across the country were too different
to proceed as one class-action lawsuit.
December 6, 2010: The Supreme Court said it would decide whether the
class-action certification violated federal rules for such lawsuits,
one of the most important employment discrimination class-action
cases in decades.
WHOLE FOODS: Sued for Engaging in Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Motta, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Whole Foods Market, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01322 (N.D. Calif.
March 18, 2011), accuses the retail store operator of engaging in a
pattern of unlawful and deceptive practices by requesting and
recording personal identification information, including zip codes
from customers using credit cards at the point-of-sale in
defendants' retail establishments, in violation of California Civil
Code Section 1747.08.
California Civil Code Section 1747.08 prohibits a merchant engaged
in a retail transaction with a customer from (1) requesting personal
identification from a customer paying for goods with a credit card,
and then recording that personal information upon the credit
transaction form, or (2) requiring as a condition to accepting the
credit card as payment to provide the customer's personal
identification information which the retailer causes to be written,
or otherwise records upon the credit card transaction.
Plaintiff relates that defendants obtain credit card customers'
addresses with the help of third-party vendors such as Experian or
Acxiom that maintain proprietary software and databases containing
hundreds of millions of individual consumers' contact information.
Plaintiff says that defendants then stored and shared customers'
private information, including zip codes and home addresses, with
others, without authorization.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Patterson, Esq.
Matthew J. O'Connor, Esq.
HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 756-6990
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Company Records $11.47M ARO at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company recorded asset retirement obligations of US
$11,470,000 at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$12,608,000 at Dec.
31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.
The liability recognized to retire long-lived assets primarily
relates to the Company's combustion turbines at its Pea Ridge
facility, various landfill sites, a barge unloading dock, asbestos
removal, ash ponds, and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls in
certain transformers.
The Company also has identified retirement obligations related to
certain transmission and distribution facilities, certain wireless
communication towers, and certain structures authorized by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
The Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of
Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power,
each of which is an operating public utility company. The
traditional operating companies supply electric service in the
states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi. The Company
is based in Atlanta.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corporation Faces 36 Actions at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 36 asbestos-related lawsuits at Dec. 31, 2010 in
which Noble Corporation is one of many defendants, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.
The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits that
are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos
on drilling rigs and associated facilities.
These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of
Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
Noble Corporation performs contract drilling services with its fleet
of 73 mobile offshore drilling units and one floating production
storage and offloading unit (FPSO) located worldwide. Its fleet
consists of 14 semisubmersibles, 12 drillships, 45 jackups and two
submersibles. The Company is based in Baar, Switzerland.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Accrues $1.3MM Dec. 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
The amount included in accounts payable and other accrued
liabilities on Digital Realty Trust, Inc.'s consolidated balance
sheets was about US$$1.3 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and
Dec. 31, 2009.
The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations as
required by current accounting guidance. The amount of asset
retirement obligations relates primarily to estimated asbestos
removal costs at the end of the economic life of properties that
were built before 1984.
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. owns, acquires, develops, redevelops and
manages technology-related real estate. The Company is based in San
Francisco.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 9 Units Involved in Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and nine of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related
personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products
manufactured with components that contained asbestos.
These components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were
not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the majority
of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of
coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion
of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance subject to
applicable deductibles.
Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment.
The balance has been settled for various insignificant amounts.
Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.
No provision has been made in the financial statements of the
Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary
course.
IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions business that sells pumps,
flow meters and other fluidics systems and components and engineered
products to customers in various markets worldwide. The Company is
based in Lake Forest, Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, VWR Funding, Inc. is named as a defendant in
cases that arise as a result of its distribution of laboratory
supplies, including litigation resulting from the alleged prior
distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of its
predecessors or acquired companies.
No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.
VWR Funding, Inc. is a leader in the global laboratory supply
industry. It provides distribution services by offering products
from a wide range of manufacturers to a large number of customers.
The Company is based in Radnor, Pa.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Kodak Records $57MM AROs at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company has recorded about US$57 million as of Dec.
31, 2010 and US$62 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 of asset retirement
obligations within Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position.
The Company's asset retirement obligations primarily relate to
asbestos contained in buildings that the Company owns.
In many of the countries in which the Company operates,
environmental regulations exist that require the Company to handle
and dispose of asbestos in a special manner if a building undergoes
major renovations or is demolished. Otherwise, the Company is not
required to remove the asbestos from its buildings.
Eastman Kodak Company reorganized its business to focus less on film
sales and more on sales of digital cameras and imaging systems. It
operates through three segments: Consumer Digital Imaging Group;
Film, Photofinishing, and Entertainment Group; and Graphic
Communications Group. The Company is based in Rochester, N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solutia Inc. Still Facing "Legacy Tort Claims"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. is currently involved in various "Legacy Tort Claims,"
which include claims for property damage, personal injury, products
liability or premises liability or other damages arising out of or
related to exposure to asbestos, PCB, dioxin, benzene, vinyl
chloride, silica, butadiene, pentachlorophenol, styrene tars and
other chemicals manufactured before the Company's spinoff from
Pharmacia Corporation.
No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.
Solutia Inc. manufactures performance materials and specialty
chemicals used in consumer and industrial applications including
interlayers and aftermarket film for automotive and architectural
glass; chemicals that promote safety and durability in tires; and
encapsulants, coatings and specialty chemicals used in a variety of
electronic, industrial and energy solutions. The Company is based
in St. Louis.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Group Records $226.11M A&E Losses at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
XL Group plc's asbestos- and environmental-related gross unpaid
losses and loss expenses were US$226,112,000 during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$252,885,000 during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.
The Company's reserving process includes a continuing evaluation of
the potential impact on unpaid liabilities from exposure to asbestos
and environmental claims, including related loss adjustment
expenses. Liabilities are established to cover both known and
incurred but not reported claims.
Reserves for incurred but not reported losses, net of reinsurance,
were US$54.9 million in 2010 and US$68.5 million in 2009.
The Company had 1,200 asbestos claims outstanding as of Dec. 31,
2010, compared with 1,437 claims outstanding as of Dec. 31, 2009.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company reported 125 new
asbestos claims and 362 claims resolved. During the year ended Dec.
31, 2009, the Company reported 221 new asbestos claims and 330
claims resolved.
XL Group plc is a global insurance and reinsurance company providing
property, casualty and specialty products to industrial, commercial
and, professional firms, insurance companies and other enterprises
on a worldwide basis. The Company is based in Dublin, Ireland.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Ins. Has $9.98MM Dec. 31 Gross Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos reserves for losses
and loss expenses were US$9,979,000 during the year ended Dec. 31,
2010, compared with US$11,056,000 during the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.
The Company's net reserves for losses and loss expenses were US
$8,167,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US
$9,244,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
Included in the Company's loss and loss expense reserves are amounts
for environmental claims, both asbestos and non-asbestos. Carried
net loss and loss expense reserves for environmental claims were US
$39.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and
US$41.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.
At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's reserves for environmental claims
amounted to US$47.3 million on a gross basis (including case
reserves of US$15.7 million and IBNR reserves of US$31.6 million)
and US$39.4 million on a net basis (including case reserves of US
$11.6 million and IBNR reserves of US$27.8 million).
Of these, 1,070 are asbestos related, of which 414 are with 43
insureds in the wholesale and/or retail of plumbing, electrical, and
other building supplies with related case reserves of US$3.1
million. In addition, 647 asbestos claims are with one insured, an
asbestos gasket manufacturer with related case reserves of US
$900,000. These claims are associated with two policies each
written with a US$1 million policy aggregate limit.
During 2010, 283 asbestos claims were closed. The total case
reserves for asbestos related claims amounted to US$4.2 million on a
gross basis and US$3.7 million on a net basis. About 66 of the
total environmental claims involve nine landfill sites. The
landfill sites account for case reserves of US$6.6 million on a
gross basis and US$3.4 million on a net basis, and include reserves
for several sites that are currently listed on the National
Priorities List.
The remaining claims, which account for US$4.9 million of case
reserves on a gross basis and US$4.5 million on a net basis, involve
leaking underground heating oil storage tanks and other latent
environmental exposures.
Selective Insurance Group, Inc. offers property and casualty
insurance products and services in the Eastern and Midwestern
regions of the United States. The Company is based in Branchville,
N.J.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has 24,764 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation faced 24,764 unresolved asbestos claims during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 25,295 claims during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 3,692
claims filed and 4,223 claims resolved. The average cost of
resolved claims was US$12,073.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 3,323
claims filed and 13,385 claims resolved. The average cost of
resolved claims was US$11,106.
Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in
a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components that
are alleged to have contained asbestos.
Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were
not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the
subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The
manufactured products that are alleged to have contained asbestos
generally were provided to meet the specifications of the
subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy.
The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts management
considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each
claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant
has fluctuated during the past several years.
To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no
payment.
Colfax Corporation offers critical fluid-handling products and
technologies. The Company's operating subsidiaries supply products
under brands like Allweiler, Baric, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin,
Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. The Company
is based in Fulton, Md.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Units Still Face Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Minerals Technologies Inc.'s subsidiaries are among
numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.
The Company currently has 305 pending silica cases and 27 pending
asbestos cases. To date, 1,160 silica cases and five asbestos cases
have been dismissed.
The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to date.
The Company is unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage.
The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these
cases since inception was about US$200,000, the majority of which
has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. under the terms of certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992.
The Company's experience has been that the Company is not liable to
plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect
to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits.
Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad range
of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products
and supporting systems and services. The Company has two reportable
segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories. The Company is based
in New York.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corporation Still Subject to Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation continues to be subject to claims, administrative
and legal proceedings, like lawsuits that relate to contractual
allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries
(including asbestos claims), antitrust matters and employment-
related matters.
No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.
Eaton Corporation is a diversified power management company with
2010 sales of US$13.7 billion. The Company has about 70,000
employees in over 50 countries and sells products to customers in
more than 150 countries. The Company is based in Cleveland, Ohio.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Facing 80 Actions in Md. at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. says that at Dec. 31, 2010, there are about 180
asbestos cases still pending against subsidiary Potomac Electric
Power Company in the State Courts of Maryland.
Of such cases, about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19, 2000,
and were tendered to Mirant Corporation for defense and
indemnification in connection with the sale by Pepco of its
generation assets to Mirant in 2000.
In 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the state
Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and
Baltimore County, Md. in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings
known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case."
Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on
a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the plaintiffs
argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a safe work
environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's property.
Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco to
their complaints. While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it
appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory
damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from each defendant.
Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits have
been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases have been
dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings
and meetings and one motion for summary judgment, Pepco has had
about 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice,
either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court.
While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the
remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about US$360
million, the Company and Pepco believe the amounts claimed by the
remaining plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated.
Pepco Holdings, Inc. distributes electricity and natural gas through
its Potomac Electric Power (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light, and
Atlantic City Electric utilities to about 1.9 million customers in
Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. None of the
Company's three utilities have power generation plants. The Company
is based in Washington, D.C.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 68,513 Claims Open v. MetLife's Unit at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
recorded 68,513 asbestos injury claims during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 68,804 claims during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.
During 2010, MLIC had 5,670 new claims and settlement payments were
US$34.9 million. During 2009, MLIC had 3,910 new claims and
settlement payments were US$37.6 million.
MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages.
MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor
has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing
or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to
certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of
MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through about the
1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or failed
to disclose those health risks.
During 1998, MLIC paid US$878 million in premiums for excess
insurance policies for asbestos-related claims. The excess
insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provided for recovery
of losses up to US$1.5 billion in excess of a US$400 million self-
insured retention.
The Company's initial option to commute the excess insurance
policies for asbestos-related claims would have arisen at the end of
2008. On Sept. 29, 2008, MLIC entered into agreements commuting the
excess insurance policies at Sept. 30, 2008.
As a result of the commutation of the policies, MLIC received cash
and securities totaling US$632 million. Of this total, MLIC
received US$115 million in fixed maturity securities on Sept. 26,
2008, US$200 million in cash on Oct. 29, 2008, and US$317 million in
cash on Jan. 29, 2009.
MLIC recognized a loss on commutation of the policies in the amount
of US$35.3 million during 2008.
MetLife, Inc. provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit
programs, serving 90 million customers in over 60 countries. The
Company is based in New York.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. is subject to a number of lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a result
of exposure to asbestos.
In the early 2000s, the Company was named in nearly 20,000
complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court and
the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to
asbestos from its product categories. Most of these claims have
been dismissed and the Company's current docket of active and
inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.
A small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars manufactured
by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's subsidiaries.
The balance of the claims is related to alleged exposure to asbestos
in the Company's automotive emission control products. Only a small
percentage of the claimants allege that they were automobile
mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in
other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient information
to determine whether there is any basis for a claim against the
Company.
Tenneco Inc. produces emission control and ride control products and
systems for light, commercial and specialty vehicle applications.
The Company is based in Lake Forest, Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HP Fined $9,600 for Breach at Corvallis Campus
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a US$9,600
penalty to Hewlett-Packard Company for allowing an unlicensed
contractor to perform an asbestos removal project in one of its
business campus buildings, at 1000 NE Circle Boulevard, in
Corvallis, Ore. last summer, according to an Oregon DEQ press
release dated March 14, 2011.
Hewlett-Packard allowed a flooring contractor to begin a carpet
removal project in the commercial building in late July 2010. While
removing the carpet, the flooring company's employees disturbed
about 456 square feet of underlying, asbestos-containing vinyl floor
tile.
The employees broke the tile into pieces, likely releasing asbestos
fibers into the air. As owner of the building, Hewlett-Packard is
responsible for ensuring that asbestos in the building is properly
managed.
DEQ also cited Hewlett-Packard for openly accumulating the
asbestos-containing waste material from the carpet removal project,
but did not issue a penalty for this violation.
Hewlett-Packard did not appeal the penalty and the full penalty
amount is now due. Hewlett-Packard has discussed doing a Supplement
Environmental Project as part of its penalty payment. Supplemental
environmental projects can include a variety of actions that address
local environmental problems.
Up to 80 percent of the total penalty amount can be put towards a
project that benefits Oregon's environment. DEQ must approve any
project proposed by Hewlett-Packard.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Cases Filed in St. Clair on Feb. 2 & Feb. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four asbestos-related lawsuits -- one filed on Feb. 2, 2011 and
three filed on Feb. 22, 2011 -- have been added to the growing list
of cases in St. Clair County, Ill.'s asbestos docket, The
Madison/St. Clair Record reports.
Joan Mozeika of New Jersey filed suit in St. Clair County Circuit
Court on behalf of her deceased next-of-kin, Alexander L. Rossi,
while Evelyn L. Thiele of Florida filed suit on behalf of her
deceased next-of-kin, Donald C. Thiele; Brian Belkin of Texas filed
suit; and Marsha K. Ayer of Michigan filed suit on behalf of her
deceased next-of-kin, Gary M. Ayer.
Ms. Mozeika, Ms. Thiele, Mr. Belkin and Ms. Ayer are represented by
Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville.
Erik Karst, Esq., and Matthew J. Wright, Esq., of Karst and von
Oiste in Houston will serve of counsel.
In her complaint filed on Feb. 2, 2011, Ms. Mozeika alleges 36
defendant companies caused Mr. Rossi to develop lung cancer after
his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.
According to the suit, he worked as a tile setter and brick layer
from 1946 until 1980, as a home repairman and remodeler from 1946
until 1980 and as an auto repairman from 1946 until 1980.
In her complaint filed on Feb. 22, 2011, Evelyn L. Thiele alleges 31
defendant companies caused Mr. Thiele to develop lung cancer after
his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.
According to the suit, he worked as a tile setter and brick layer
for various contractors in Ohio, Illinois and Michigan from 1950
until 1980.
In his complaint filed on Feb. 22, 2011, Mr. Belkin alleges 38
defendant companies caused him to develop lung cancer after his
exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.
In her complaint filed on Feb. 22, 2011, Ms. Ayer alleges 38
defendant companies caused Mr. Ayer to develop lung cancer after his
exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.
According to the suit, Mr. Ayer worked as a line worker and
powerhouse engineer at General Motors from 1972 until 2005 and as a
home repairman and remodeler from the 1960s until the 1970s.
In her five-count complaint, Ms. Mozeika seeks compensatory damages
of more than US$100,000, a judgment of more than US$50,000, economic
damages of more than US$50,000 and punitive and exemplary damages of
more than US$50,000, plus punitive damages in an amount sufficient
to punish Sprinkmann Insulation and Sprinkmann Sons Corporation and
to deter them from committing similar actions in the future and
other relief the court deems just.
In her nine-count complaint, Ms. Thiele seeks economic damages of
more than US$200,000, a judgment of more than US$50,000, punitive
and exemplary damages of more than US$150,000, compensatory damages
of more than US$100,000 and punitive damages in an amount sufficient
to punish Sprinkmann Insulation and Sprinkmann Sons Corporation and
to deter them from committing similar actions in the future.
In his five-count complaint, Mr. Belkin seeks judgment of more than
US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$50,000 and punitive
and exemplary damages of more than US$100,000, plus other relief the
court deems just.
In her five-count complaint, Ms. Ayer seeks punitive and exemplary
damages of more than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than
US$50,000, economic damages of more than US$50,000 and a judgment of
more than US$50,000, plus other relief the court deems just.
At the appellate court in Mount Vernon, justices are hearing an
appeal made by defendants in several asbestos cases filed by out of
state plaintiffs in St. Clair County. The defendants argue that St.
Clair County is not an appropriate venue.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amencon Director Fined for Asbestos Mishandling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shay James, the director of a defunct Redditch, England-based
asbestos surveying firm Amencon Ltd, has been sentenced after
failing to manage the spread of asbestos at a demolition site in
Leicester, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release
dated March 11, 2011.
Mr. James was appointed by Bovis Homes to carry out an asbestos
survey of a factory unit in the city's Humberstone Lane -- earmarked
to become a new housing development.
In July 2008 and August 2008, Mr. James carried out the survey with
an employee but failed to identify 1,252 square meters of asbestos
insulation board (AIB) and lagging. As a result, part of the
building containing AIB and lagging was demolished without putting
proper asbestos management processes in place.
Fortunately, the Company employed to carry out the demolition
noticed suspicious material that was identified as asbestos during
the process, and work was stopped immediately.
Mr. James of Albert Street, Redditch pleaded guilty to breaching
Secton 36 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 at
Leicester Magistrates' Court. He was fined GBP5,000 and ordered to
pay costs of GBP2,348.
HSE inspector Stephen Farthing said, "Although Mr. James is a
trained asbestos surveyor, a very poor survey was carried out which
missed large quantities of AIB and lagging.
"This resulted from his failure to ensure they had adequate lighting
or access equipment to conduct the survey. As a consequence, a
building was demolished that contained asbestos and contractors were
put at risk from exposure which is completely unacceptable."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welsh Site Manager Fined for Safety Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Bohlen, a construction site manager from Barry, Wales, has
been sentenced after directing a bricklayer to demolish a wall that
contained asbestos, which put him at serious risk, according to a
Health and Safety Executive Press release dated March 10, 2011.
On May 22, 2009, the 63-year-old Mr. Bohlen was in Newport
supervising the refurbishment of the Monwel Hankinson facility,
which manufactures equipment for people with disabilities.
A full site survey for asbestos had been carried out, but Mr. Bohlen
failed to check the warnings it gave and instructed Justin Jones, a
bricklayer from Pontypridd, to manually demolish the known
asbestos-containing fascia boards from the building.
Mr. Jones used a hammer and chisel to break up the board into
fragments, which generated plumes of dust, releasing asbestos fibers
into the air.
Mr. Jones continued working as he had been asked to until another
manager realized the danger and told him to stop. Mr. Jones had to
undergo emergency decontamination as a result.
Architects employed by Newport City Council, which partly runs the
Monwel Hankinson facility, had specifically designed the
refurbishment work to avoid disturbing any of the asbestos-
containing materials. As site manager, Mr. Bohlen was aware of this
element of the refurbishment plan.
Mr. Bohlen later informed Newport City Council that additional work
was needed on the building and, rather than waiting for the
authorization or amended plans from the architects, he went ahead
and told Mr. Jones to carry out the work which led to him being
exposed to the potentially deadly asbestos.
Mr. Bohlen pleaded guilty to breaching Section 7(a) of the Health
and Safety at work etc. Act 1974 and was given a suspended sentence
of two months. He was also ordered to carry out 150 hours of
community service.
Inspector Liam Osborne said, "Henry Bohlen was a very experienced
construction site manager and, by his own admission was aware of
asbestos, the risks to health and the correct procedures that ought
to have been followed.
"Rather than wait for the architect's plans, consult the site
survey, or if that was not available, to have taken a few minutes to
check with other parties, Mr. Bohlen went ahead and instructed Mr.
Jones to do the work, which ultimately exposed him to the
potentially deadly asbestos.
"This is something Mr. Jones will have to live with for the rest of
his life -- wondering whether his site manager's lack of
consideration might lead to him contracting a deadly disease."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willmore Family Wins Legal Case to Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Dianne Willmore, from Rossett, Wrexham, Wales, has won
a groundbreaking legal claim to compensation for Mrs. Willmore's
exposure to asbestos and subsequent death, the Daily Post reports.
Mrs. Willmore was awarded GBP240,000 damages in July 2009 after
convincing a High Court judge her time as a pupil at the former
Bowring Comprehensive School in Huyton, Merseyside, caused her lung
cancer.
Knowsley council took the former supermarket worker to London's
Civil Appeal Court, arguing it was not "reasonably practicable" to
protect her from asbestos exposure. But in October that year, Mrs.
Willmore finally looked to have won her battle when Lord Justice
Sedley backed the original decision. However, she died the
following day, after Knowsley council said it was weighing up a
fresh court bid to overturn the decision.
The authority took the case to the Supreme Court, arguing they could
only be held liable if it could be proved they were responsible for
causing exposure to asbestos that had at least "doubled the risk" of
mesothelioma. However, on March 9, 2011, seven Supreme Court
justices unanimously dismissed their appeal.
The court heard girlhood memories for Mrs. Willmore included
watching prankster classmates removing ceiling tiles at school to
hide blazers. She also remembered workmen removing tiles to re-
route cables, and tiles being stacked in the girls' toilets. She
has now become the first school pupil to win damages as a victim of
malignant mesothelioma. Legal experts said the ruling could pave
the way for similar claims nationwide.
Mrs. Willmore's husband Barre said, "I'm so, so happy. Dianne
always said she was such an ordinary person who would not amount to
much. But to me she was extremely special and with this judgment
now everyone can see she was no ordinary woman."
Ruth Davies, solicitor for John Pickering and Partners which
represented Mr. Willmore, said she was delighted the case -- the
first relating to a school pupil -- was finally over.
A spokesman for Knowsley Council said, "It has always been clear
that Mrs. Willmore suffered from a severe illness which was caused
by exposure to asbestos and the council is, and always has been,
extremely sympathetic towards Mrs. Willmore and her family."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atwell's Case v. 6 Firms Filed Feb. 22 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah J. Atwell, on behalf of her late husband Richard M. Atwell, on
Feb. 22, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against six defendant
corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.
According to the complaint, Mr. Atwell was employed at job sites in
West Virginia and surrounding areas and continuously worked with and
was exposed to asbestos, asbestos-containing products and/or
machinery requiring the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing
products.
Mrs. Atwell seeks seeking compensatory and punitive damages. She is
being represented by James A. McKowen, Esq., and David P. Pavlik,
Esq.
The six companies named in the suit are A.W. Chesterton Company;
Bondex International, Inc.; Georgia-Pacific Corp.; Kaiser Gypsum
Company, Inc; Rapid American Corp.; and RPM, Inc.
Case No. 11-C-285 has been assigned to a visiting judge.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Issues Statement on McLean Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., on March 14, 2011, issued the following
statement concerning the verdict handed down on March 11, 2011 by a
McLean County, Ill., jury against four defendants, including the
Company, in a case alleging asbestos-related injuries, according to
a Company press release dated March 14, 2011.
Of the total US$90 million awarded by the jury against the four
defendants, a combined US$9.6 million in compensatory damages were
assessed against all defendants, and US$40 million in punitive
damages were assessed against the Company.
"Owens-Illinois is disappointed in the jury's verdict. The
plaintiff never worked for Owens-Illinois or in an Owens-Illinois
facility, nor did he allege exposure to asbestos-containing
materials made or sold by the company. His alleged exposures did
not occur until 1972, which was 14 years after Owens-Illinois last
made or sold thermal insulation products containing asbestos. The
plaintiff claimed, however, that Owens-Illinois participated in a
conspiracy with other companies to conceal or misrepresent
information about the health risks associated with asbestos
exposure.
"Owens-Illinois did not conspire with anyone concerning asbestos
health hazards, continues to deny these conspiracy claims, and will
challenge this verdict, if necessary, in the Illinois Appellate
Courts. The company has successfully defended its position in
similar cases and is confident of a successful outcome in this
matter as well. Owens-Illinois does not anticipate any changes to
its 2011 financial outlook as a result of this case."
Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass container manufacturer and has ties
with many of the world's leading food and beverage brands. With
revenues of US$6.6 billion in 2010, the Company employs more than
24,000 people at 81 plants in 21 countries. The Company, which is
based in Perrysburg, Ohio, delivers safe, effective and sustainable
glass packaging solutions to a growing global marketplace.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. 2034 to Deter "Abuses" in Lawsuits Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Rep. Doug Miller (R-New Braunfels) filed House Bill 2034,
which would stop abuses in asbestos cases by requiring plaintiffs'
lawyers to seek compensation from federal bankruptcy trusts before
going to trial against solvent defendants, The Southeast Texas
Record reports.
In a story first reported by the Texas Civil Justice League on March
2, 2011, Rep. Miller said, "H.B. 2034 closes a loophole the trial
lawyers have been driving an armored truck through. This bill will
stop trial lawyers from gaming the legal system to enrich themselves
at the expense of asbestos victims."
The bill mandates applying for bankruptcy trust payments before
going to trial against solvent defendants in asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits. Under Texas law, the bankruptcy trust
payments would be considered settlement credits in litigation
against solvent defendants.
H.B. 2034 provides for simultaneous filing of trust claims and tort
suits with a deadline of filing trust claims 90 days before trial.
According to Rep. Miller, most trial lawyers filing asbestos
lawsuits in Texas do not file claims with the bankruptcy trusts
until after the litigation has concluded and that practice avoids
settlement credits and maximizes damages against solvent defendants.
Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform, said, "We applaud introduction of Rep. Miller's bill, which
will address the growing problem of double dipping by asbestos
plaintiffs' lawyers and promote transparency in asbestos
litigation."
The Southeast Texas Record is owned by the Institute for Legal
Reform, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Ninety-six companies have filed bankruptcy due to present and future
asbestos liabilities. Sixty-three of those companies have created
trusts to pay asbestos-injury claims. Those federal bankruptcy
trusts may hold as much as US$60 billion in assets to pay asbestos
claims, according to 2006 Mealey's Bankruptcy Report.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comment Period for Madison Cases Opens March 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder, on March 11, 2011,
said she was open to suggestions on how to schedule cases for trial
in the court's asbestos docket, The Madison/St. Clair Record
reports.
However, Judge Crowder and the attorneys who packed her third floor
courtroom noted that a leading voice seeking to give advice on the
matter was absent. She proposed a second date be set to accommodate
that absence.
Judge Crowder said, "We can put it more succinctly that Barney
(Robert) Shultz can't be here today and nobody from Heyl Royster can
be Barney Shultz."
With that in mind, Judge Crowder set March 25, 2011 as the date she
will hear more suggestions on the allocation of 2012's asbestos
trial dates. That date was set after verbal agreements of the
attorneys present.
The March 25 date also allows defense firms to weigh in on proposals
submitted by attorney Allison Romani, Esq., of the firm of Shrader &
Associates on behalf of plaintiffs' firms.
Mr. Shultz submitted a proposal to Judge Crowder in December 2010 on
behalf of Union Carbide, Riley Stoker, Certainteed Corporation, Ford
Motor, Maremont Corporation, General Electric and Arvin Meritor,
companies often found at the defense table in asbestos cases.
Currently, the docket is managed along the lines laid out in a 2004
order signed by then Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, who
presided over the asbestos docket for six years until his retirement
in December 2010.
Mr. Shultz's proposal includes revisions to how trial dates are set
and changes to the discovery process leading up to those trials.
His proposal called Judge Stack's 2004 order, "an outmoded document
that, over the course of time, has led to the creation of an
environment contrary to sound public policy and an appropriate
system of civil justice."
Mr. Romani, one of the few attorneys to remark on the scheduling
following March 22, 2011's usual docket business, told Judge Crowder
that plaintiffs' firms had reached a unanimous agreement about a
proposal for 2012's dates that had been submitted to the court.
That proposal could also apply to 2013, Mr. Romani told Judge
Crowder. The document was also submitted to some of the defense
firms.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Reacts to McLean Asbestos Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to a U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform press release
dated March 15, 2011, ILR president Lisa A. Rickard issued the
following statement regarding a US$90 million asbestos verdict
handed down in McLean County, Ill., on March 11, 2011.
"A jury's decision in a McLean County, Illinois asbestos case has
resulted in a US$90 million judgment, believed to be the second
highest verdict ever in a mesothelioma case.
"Owens-Illinois was assessed US$40 million in punitive damages and
Honeywell International Inc. and Pneumo Abex were assessed US$20
million each, even though there were no allegations by the plaintiff
in the case that he ever worked for, or was exposed to any
asbestos-containing materials made by the three companies.
"Instead, the plaintiff had claimed the three companies conspired to
conceal information about the health risks of asbestos from their
employees, customers and others, a claim the companies vehemently
deny and say was not supported by evidence presented at trial.
"This runaway verdict against companies that even the plaintiff
admitted did not expose him to asbestos, is the result of the trial
court's utter failure to follow the rule of law and controlling
precedent.
"How can companies in this country create jobs and energize the
economy when they are drained of tens of millions of dollars in
abusive litigation in which their products were not even involved?
"The ruling confirms a troubling trend in the State of Illinois
where there is a hostile litigation environment that continues to
destroy jobs and impair economic growth."
ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial, and educational activities at the national,
state, and local levels.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than three million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and
local chambers and industry associations.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MACK Group Completes Cleanup of Pa. Power Stack
----------------------------------------------------------------
The MACK Group, LLC completed the asbestos abatement of a 400-foot-
high concrete coal fired power plant stack in Northeast
Pennsylvania, according to a Company press release dated March 12,
2011.
The project consisted of the asbestos abatement of 20,000 square
feet of asbestos containing rubberized paint 1/8" thick on the
exterior of the 400 foot high stack while the stack remained in
operation.
Because the aging concrete stack was in need of repair, a structural
carbon fiber shell was proposed for the stack to give it a new life.
This carbon fiber shell would allow for the stack to not to have to
be demolished and completely rebuilt but remain in operation and be
refurbished.
In order for this carbon fiber shell to be put in place, all the
exterior asbestos containing paint needed to be removed from the
stack. Three 400-foot high pump jack towers were put in place
surrounding the stack. These towers were then plasticized and put
under HEPA negative air filtration.
The MACK Group workers then utilized specialized HEPA equipped
powered hand tools to remove the rubberized asbestos paint. Since
the stack was still in operation and emitting noxious gases the top
50ft of the stack MACK Group workers increased the PPE to Type C
supplied air.
The MACK Group's PA licensed asbestos workers brought this unique
and challenging project in on schedule and without injury.
The MACK Group, LLC is an asbestos abatement and demolition
contractor that operates on a nationwide basis. Services include
asbestos abatement, demolition, Terminator flooring removals, Shot
Blast/Blastrac services and fluorescent bulb and ballast recycling
services. The Company is based in Cherry Hill, N.J.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lenney Awarded $1.36MM in Filter Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in San Francisco jury has awarded US$1.36 million to Don
Lenney, a terminally ill man, who smoked filter-tipped Kent
cigarettes in the 1950s that contained asbestos, SFGate.com reports.
Lawyers for Mr. Lenney and his wife, Monica, said the verdict was a
rare victory for plaintiffs who have sued over Kent's use of
asbestos in its Micronite filters from 1952 to 1956. The
cigarette's manufacturer, Lorillard Tobacco Co., says it has won 15
out of 20 trials nationwide and contends the filters released only
trace amounts of asbestos that posed no danger.
The 73-year-old Mr. Lenney, a former Bay Area insurance agent, now
lives in Placerville. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
November 2009 and had a lung removed in early 2010, his attorney
said.
Laurel Simes, Esq., said, "He tries not to dwell on it too much and
just wants to live as long as he can, and be there for his wife and
children and grandchildren."
Mr. Lenney started smoking other brands in 1953 at age 16 and soon
switched to Kents, Ms. Simes said. She said he stopped smoking in
1965, shortly after the U.S. surgeon general warned of the dangers
of cigarettes.
Medical groups' concerns about tobacco in the early 1950s prompted
companies to start selling filtered cigarettes. Kent's ads promoted
the Micronite filters as "the greatest health protection in
cigarette history" and said they removed seven times as much tar and
nicotine as other leading filters. The Company removed asbestos
from the filters in 1957.
During the seven-week trial in San Francisco Superior Court, lawyers
for Lorillard and the filter's manufacturer, Hollingsworth & Vose,
argued that the filters were safe and that the evidence failed to
show that Mr. Lenney had smoked Kents when they contained asbestos.
Ms. Simes said Mr. Lenney had testified that he used the brand
during that period and was backed up by two former high school
classmates.
The jury rejected a claim that the companies had been negligent but
voted 9-3 to find that they had violated Mr. Lenney's right to buy
and use a safe product. The March 3, 2011 verdict apportioned 35
percent of the fault to Lorillard, 25 percent to Hollingsworth &
Vose and the rest to other asbestos suppliers, a verdict that makes
the two companies responsible for just over US$1 million in damages,
the Lenneys' lawyers said.
Defense lawyer Randall Haimovici, Esq., said the companies would
appeal. The negligence verdict shows that jurors agreed "we didn't
do anything wrong by using asbestos in filters back in the 1950s,"
he said.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gillenwater Awarded $90MM in Ill. Asbestos Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in McLean County, Ill., returned verdicts totaling nearly US
$90 million against four companies accused of exposing the 59-year-
old Charles Gillenwater to asbestos, Pantagraph reports.
Mr. Gillenwater contracted mesothelioma while working as a pipe
fitter in the 1970s at several work sites, including Illinois State
University, Bridgestone-Firestone and The Eureka Co., according to
his lawyers, James Wylder, Esq., and Andrew Kelly, Esq., with Wylder
Corwin Kelly of Bloomington. The jury deliberated over two days
following a five-week trial.
The jury awarded compensatory damages of US$9.6 million against
defendants Honeywell International Inc., Pneumo Abex, Owens-Illinois
Inc. and John Crane Inc.
Punitive damages of US$20 million were found against Honeywell,
Peneumo Abex and US$40 million against Owens-Illinois.
The jury found that Honeywell, Pneumo Abex and Owens-Illinois
suppressed or conspired with others to suppress information about
the hazards of asbestos, including an agreement not to warn
employees and customers about the dangers of the substance.
Owens-Illinois said it plans to appeal the US$40 million punitive
damages award that the jury levied against it in the case.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ellesmere Secretary's Family Wins Payout Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Enid Costello, an Ellesmere Port, England, secretary
who died from mesothelioma after exposure to low-level asbestos, has
won a groundbreaking claim to compensation, the Ellesmere Port
Pioneer reports.
The Supreme Court ruled on March 16, 2011 in favor of the relatives
of Mrs. Costello, who died from mesothelioma in January 2006 at the
age of 74. The ruling is expected to open the floodgates for
similar claims from cancer sufferers exposed to "low levels" of
asbestos in other factories and works.
Mrs. Costello's daughter, Karen Sienkiewicz, initially lost a county
court claim to compensation, made on behalf of her late mother's
estate, but won in the appeal court.
Mrs. Costello was said to have breathed in dust containing asbestos
when she was a secretary at Van Leer, operating as Greif (UK) Ltd,
Oil Sites Road, Ellesmere Port. She worked there from 1966 to 1984.
Unlike many other mesothelioma victims, Mrs. Costello, of Eastham,
was never in direct contact with deadly asbestos spores. The
compensation claim was against her former employer that produced
steel container drums. Asbestos dust was released into atmosphere
during the process.
The Court of Appeal ruled compensation should be paid, but Greif UK
fought the ruling in the Supreme Court, the highest court in the
land. On March 16, 2011, seven Supreme Court justices unanimously
dismissed their appeals.
Speaking after the judgment, Ms. Sienkiewicz's solicitor Norman
Jones said, "The message here is that there is no low level where
asbestos is safe. Mesothelioma is at the most serious end of
illnesses and people who get it go on to die, there is no getting
away from that.
"This judgment gives the unsuspecting victim who has worked in an
environment where they have been exposed to asbestos a chance to be
compensated for an illness they have developed through no fault of
their own.
"It is from that point of view a great victory for the common man,
and legally it is perhaps the most significant judgment in relation
to asbestos cases as it will put an end to these types of challenges
and disputes."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Co. Posts $3.51BB A&E Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Total reserves related to environmental
remediation, including asbestos claims, were US$3.510 billion at
Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.
Uncertainties about the status of laws, regulations, technology and
information related to individual sites make it difficult to develop
a meaningful estimate of the reasonably possible aggregate
environmental remediation exposure; these costs could differ from
the Company's current estimates.
General Electric Company is a diversified technology and financial
service corporation. With products and services like aircraft
engines, power generation, water processing, and household
appliances to medical imaging, business and consumer financing and
industrial products, the Company serves customers in more than 100
countries and employs about 287,000 people worldwide. The Company
is based in Fairfield, Conn.
*********
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 * * *