/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110408.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 8, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 70 Headlines BLUEPHOENIX SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Israel CHINA ELECTRIC: Faces Securities Class Action in California CITIMORTGAGE INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in Pa. EATON CORP: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action in New York FOREX CAPITAL: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action in New York GUARDIAN FIRST: Court Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed HOWREY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Employee Wages IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in "Gilmor" Case to Begin Aug. 13, 2012 IMPAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend "Baker" Suit MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit NUTRACEA: Arizona Court Okays Settlement in Consolidated Action PACIFIC MERCANTILE: Gets Approval of $225,000 TILA Suit Settlement PUR MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Bio-Alcamid Injectable Gel RADIENT PHARMA: Cohen Milstein Sellers Conducting Investigation RAYTHEON CO: Judge Says Evidence Not Enough to Support Class Suit ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Employee Benefits TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Dismisses Sudden Acceleration Class Actions TRAILER BRIDGE: Continues to Defend Puerto Rico Suits UNITED STATES: Republicans Seek Legal Fee Cap in Cobell Case WASHINGTON MUTUAL: May 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set XO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Zheng" Derivative Class Action XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Henzel" Class Action Complaint XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Murphy" Class Action Complaint XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Fast" Class Action Complaint XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Borden" Class Action Complaint Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Has $3.4MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Facing 485 Pending Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Named in Injury and Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenOn Americas Posts $54MM Non-Current Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has Net Reserves of $532.9MM for A&E ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Named in Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: PICO Holdings Facing 28 Open Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenOn Energy Records $128MM Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Has 16 Injury Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enterprise Products Has $97.1MM ARO at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Comments on Inaccurate Dow Jones Article ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Posts $24.79MM Dec. 31 Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Motors Facing Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: BP Plc Subject to Asbestos Exposure Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Arnold Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Could be Subject to Potential Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinea Action v. Ballantyne Pending in New York ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $30.33MM Net A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,081 Open Claims Ongoing v. Ampco at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Cleared in Howden Last Dec. 8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Filed Case in Pa. Last Feb. 24 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Long-Term Liability at $193.6M at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Subject to Potential Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allis-Chalmers Energy Named in Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, NATCO Still Facing Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Facing Injury Cases in Four States ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39 Suits Pending v. American Locker at March 9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Has $1.6MM Dec. 31 ARO Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Has $277T Reserve for Gradall Plant ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant's Motion Denied in Aultman Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $6,075 Fine to Keystone Contracting ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mansell, Woodlands Fined for Safety Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quarnmill Construction Fined for Safety Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Local Fined for Disposal Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Gilsonite Files for Chap. 11 Bankruptcy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swindon Local Fined GBP500 for Disposal Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cirencester Resident's Death Related to Hazard ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4.2MM OK'd for Fort Wayne Renovation, Abatement ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCJ Probes Zurbrugg Site for Disposal Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: HUD Probes Youngstown's $11T Fee for Abatement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawrence Company Penalized for Safety Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l. to Fund Trust for Asbestos Victims ASBESTOS UPDATE: JM Realty, McGrail Issued Penalty of $200,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Rulings in Evans' Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Facing 2.5T Individual Cases at Dec. 31 ********* BLUEPHOENIX SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Israel --------------------------------------------------------------- BluePhoenix Solutions Ltd. continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit filed in Israel by a shareholder of Liraz Systems Ltd., which the Company acquired in 2003, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In June 2003, a former Liraz Systems Ltd. shareholder filed an application with the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court to approve a claim filed by him against the Company, as a class action. The claim relates to the acquisition of Liraz shares, which the Company completed in March 2003. The shareholder alleges that the share price the Company paid to Liraz's shareholders in the tender offer and in a subsequent mandatory purchase was lower than the fair price of Liraz shares. The maximum amount of the claim is approximately NIS 38.9 million ($10.8 million) in the aggregate. Under Israeli law, the court's approval is required for the plaintiff to represent all of the shareholders of Liraz who sold their shares to the Company pursuant to the tender offer and the mandatory acquisition. The plaintiff has applied for such approval in the lawsuit. Since the critical issue in the Company's case concerns the basis upon which the fair price of shares purchased within the context of a tender offer is to be determined, and due to the fact that this particular issue has come before the Supreme Court of Israel in an appeal concerning another separate case, the plaintiff in the Company's claim has agreed to postpone the proceedings until the Supreme Court has given its decision in the appeal. In December 2009, the Supreme Court held that, as a general rule, the fair price of shares purchased within the context of a full tender offer shall be determined in accordance with the discounted cash flow method. The plaintiff in the Company's case was supposed to notify the court whether he wishes to renew the proceedings. As of March 31, 2011, the plaintiff has not yet applied to the court. Based on analysis of the statement of claim, including an evaluation of the fair value of the Liraz shares, and the price paid for Liraz in a previous transaction immediately prior to the tender offer, the Company believes that the allegations against it in this proceeding are without merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend the claim and contest the allegations made therein. CHINA ELECTRIC: Faces Securities Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of China Electric Motor, Inc. between January 29, 2010 and March 30, 2011, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. China Electric Motor engages in the design, manufacture, sale and marketing of micro-motors and micro-motor components in the People's Republic of China and internationally. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning China Electric Motor's operations and financial condition, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities. On March 31, 2011, the Company announced it would be unable to timely issue its fiscal year 2010 financial results due to "possible discrepancies concerning the Company's banking statements that were very recently identified by the Company's auditors in the course of their audit of the consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010." No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased China Electric Motor securities between Jan. 29, 2010 and March 30, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until May 31, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our Web site at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ Contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Telephone: (215) 638-4847 (888) 638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ CITIMORTGAGE INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all Pennsylvania homeowners whose mortgage loans have been serviced by CitiMortgage, Inc., and who, since April 13, 2009, (1) have entered into a Trial Period Plan Contract with CitiMortgage and made all payments as required by their TPP Contract and complied with CitiMortgage's requests for documentation, and (2) have not received or have been denied a permanent Home Affordable Modification Agreement that complied with the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program rules. If you believe that you have been improperly denied a permanent loan modification by CitiMortgage, Inc., after April 13, 2009, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Eric Lechtzin of Berger & Montague, P.C. at 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000, or by e-mail at elechtzin@bm.net A copy of the Complaint can be viewed on Berger & Montague, P.C.'s website at http://www.bergermontague.com/or may be requested from the Court. The docket number is 11-cv-02318. The Complaint alleges that CitiMortgage accepted billions in government bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program earmarked to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. CitiMortgage, like other TARP-funded financial institutions, is contractually obligated to modify mortgage loans it services for homeowners who qualify under HAMP, a federal program designed to abate the foreclosure crisis by providing mortgage loan modifications to eligible homeowners. According to the lawsuit, CitiMortgage systematically slows or thwarts homeowners' requests to modify mortgages, depriving borrowers of federal bailout funds that could save them from foreclosure. The bank ends up reaping the financial benefits provided by TARP funds and also collects higher fees and interest rates associated with stressed home loans. For more information about this case, please contact: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Kimberly A. Walker, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 1-888-891-2289 215-875-3000 E-mail: ssavett@bm.net rpaul@bm.net Berger & Montague, founded in 1970, is a pioneer in class action litigation. The firm's approximately 70 attorneys concentrate their practice in complex litigation, including consumer protection, securities fraud, whistleblower and false claims actions, antitrust, labor and employment rights, and environmental and mass torts, and have recovered several billion dollars for consumers and investors. EATON CORP: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eaton Corporation may be celebrating its "100-year heritage of innovation," but it remains firmly rooted in the dark ages when it comes to gender equality. Innovation does not seem to have permeated Eaton's employment decisions; today, it is a corporation with a male-dominated culture and not a single woman on its 44- member General Sales Force management team. Aiming to put an end to the rampant gender discrimination at Eaton, two former female Sales Engineers filed a $150 million class action discrimination lawsuit against the company and three of its male managers today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs, Amy Gaitane and Mahasti Koosha, live in New Jersey and worked in Eaton's New York and New Jersey offices. Eaton is a power management company with sales of $13.7 billion in 2010. Its sales engineers sell Eaton's electrical distribution, generation and power quality equipment and engineering and support services to the company's many customers. Plaintiffs Gaitane and Koosha allege that Eaton engages in systemic discrimination against its female sales employees. The lawsuit is intended to change Eaton's discriminatory pay and promotion policies and practices, as well as its unlawful hostile work environment for female employees. The Plaintiffs are filing this action on behalf of a class of hundreds of current and former female sales employees nationwide who have worked in Eaton's electrical division from early 2008 through the date of judgment. The women and the class are represented by Janette Wipper, Siham Nurhussein, and Deepika Bains of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP. "Although Eaton publicly claims that it 'fosters an inclusive environment that respects individual differences,' this is a gross misrepresentation of Eaton's actual work environment," said Ms. Wipper, class counsel in the case. "In reality, Eaton's actions toward women could not be less inclusive. Not one of the 44 members of Eaton Electrical's General Sales Force management team is female, although women comprise approximately twenty percent of the sales employees in the U.S." Despite their exemplary performance, Plaintiffs Gaitane and Koosha were passed over for promotions, paid less than their male peers, and excluded from career-enhancing opportunities that would have resulted in greater recognition and compensation. Eaton's male managers also assigned less lucrative accounts to Ms. Gaitane, Ms. Koosha and other female sales employees, which had a negative impact on their earning potential and performance evaluations. By contrast, Eaton's male managers took great interest in the development of their male colleagues. Male employees were invited to sports bars, cigar bars, entertainment venues, and golf clubs, where they discussed company business with their managers on the company's tab. Plaintiffs Gaitane and Koosha and other female employees at Eaton were systematically excluded from these "team- building" functions. The company's male managers regularly referred to female sales engineers as "the bitches." One manager explained to Ms. Koosha that because she was of Iranian ancestry, she did not understand that bitch was an endearing term. Because of incessant gender- based harassment which induced extreme work-related stress, Ms. Koosha suffered a heart attack in 2009 and has undergone numerous bypass surgeries. "Adding insult to injury, when Ms. Koosha and Ms. Gaitane complained, the company's HR department turned the tables on them and they were treated as the problem," said Deepika Bains, one of the attorneys representing the women. "Heaped on top of a blatantly discriminatory and hostile work environment was retaliatory action, ultimately forcing Ms. Koosha to resign and Ms. Gaitane to be terminated." "We are optimistic that this suit will bring justice to Ms. Gaitane, Ms. Koosha, and other current and former female sales employees, and will result in positive changes at Eaton so that in the future, these women will be given the opportunities and support they so richly deserve," said Siham Nurhussein, another attorney for Plaintiffs and the Class. Ms. Gaitane and Ms. Koosha are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for themselves and the class, including back pay and front pay; compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages; and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. About SWH Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP 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. FOREX CAPITAL: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan and Morgan's business trial group has filed a class action lawsuit against Forex Capital Markets LLC, accusing the nation's largest Forex dealer of fraud and racketeering. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan Division) and is brought on behalf of a plaintiff in Oklahoma, as well as other similarly situated FXCM customers. If you are a former or current customer of FXCM and believe you suffered losses as a result of this alleged fraud and racketeering, visit http://businesstrialgroup.com/and complete the initial case review form for a no cost, no obligation evaluation of your claim. According to the Forex class action lawsuit, FXCM allegedly cheated thousands of customers out of their money through the use of unfair and deceptive trade practices. The suit accuses the Forex dealer of misrepresenting itself as a trading platform that is free from dealer intervention or manipulation. The class action lawsuit alleges that FXCM instead utilized a set of devices, such as software applications, designed with the purpose of interfering with customers' trades. According to the complaint, FXCM allegedly partook in racketeering activity by working with its software developers and programmers to create an application which supplies the Forex dealer with a number of tools and system commands which could interfere with customers' trades. These devices allegedly allowed the dealer to route trades to slower servers and send false error messages when customers tried to close out profitable trades. Lastly, the complaint alleges that the dealer lured thousands of customers by promoting a demo account, which was advertised as providing customers with a true market trading experience. Rather, the complaint alleges, once live trading began, the dealer used its software to manipulate customers' trades. Trial attorney Tucker H. Byrd of the Business Trial Group commented on the allegations in the Forex class action case, stating, "We believe, as the Complaint alleges, that Forex Capital Markets, LLC has taken advantage of the trust placed in it by its customers, causing substantial financial harm to this group of people, and we are committed to working to recover those losses." The Business Trial Group at Morgan and Morgan works to preserve and protect the rights of both individuals and companies who have wrongfully suffered business or investment losses. If you have a potential case to discuss with the business trial lawyers at Morgan and Morgan, please visit BusinessTrialGroup.com and complete the free case evaluation form. About Morgan and Morgan Morgan and Morgan is one of the largest Personal Injury law firms in the country with multiple office locations throughout Florida and the Southeast. The firm handles auto accident cases, personal injury cases, and medical malpractice cases, as well as claims against drug and medical device manufacturers. Visit Morgan and Morgan online at http://www.forthepeople.com/for a free case evaluation and information about your legal rights. Contact Information: Tucker Byrd, Esq. Morgan & Morgan Telephone: 855-249-8742 GUARDIAN FIRST: Court Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- On March 31, 2011, the District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that loan officers who worked for Guardian First Funding Group from March 23, 2004 to the present could proceed with their minimum wage and overtime claims as a Rule 23 class action under New York state law. Guardian First Funding Group specializes in reverse mortgages for seniors. It has offices in New York and Pennsylvania. In the action, current and former loan officers assert that the Guardian First Funding Group's policy of paying its employees on a commissions basis denied them minimum wages and overtime pay they are due under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York state law. They also assert that the company's owners, Jason Levy, Mark Fidel, and Robert Stark should be held individually liable for the pay they were denied. Since the case began in March 2010, Plaintiffs have filed several motions to advance their claims. On March 31, the Court ruled favorably on Plaintiffs' class certification motion, and also on four other motions Plaintiffs brought. Those motions included two motions to strike affirmative defenses, a motion to dismiss the company's counterclaims against its employees, and Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs' attorney, Michele R. Fisher stated, "Current and former employees were afraid to join this case due to concerns of retaliation. Now that the class is certified, these employees will be automatically included in the case unless they take affirmative steps to opt out. This will help the employees who were too scared to join to recover the pay they are owed." Plaintiffs are represented by Michele R. Fisher, Paul J. Lukas, and Reena Desai, from Nichols Kaster, PLLP in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The case is entitled, Febus v, Guardian First Funding Group, LLC, Case No. 1:10-cv-2590 (S.D.N.Y.). Additional information about the case is located at http://www.overtimecases.com/or may be obtained by calling Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492. HOWREY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Employee Wages ----------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted at The Am Law Daily by Brain Baxter, Stephanie Langley, a former records specialist at Howrey, has sued the firm for failing to pay WARN Act wages after she was terminated on March 31. The putative class action seeks an undetermined amount in salary and benefits for the plaintiffs, as well as attorneys' fees. According to the eight-page complaint filed on April 4 in U.S. district court in Manhattan, Ms. Langley claims that Howrey violated its obligations under the WARN Act by firing her last week without providing 60 days written notice of termination. The complaint states that the persons in the putative class "are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." As previously reported by The Am Law Daily, Howrey sent 702 WARN notices to its employees last month before the firm officially dissolved on March 15. Employees were told they would be paid until May 9 if they could not find new jobs before that date. But last week Citibank, a secured lender owed roughly $75 million by Howrey, informed the firm that it would no longer fund payroll services for employees outside of a select group of individuals assisting Howrey's dissolution committee. That led Howrey to terminate most of its staffers and close all U.S. offices after the close of business on March 31. Ms. Langley's complaint states that she worked as a records specialist in a Howrey facility located in Falls Church, Va. Representing her are partners Jack Raisner and Rene Roupinian from New York employment firm Outten & Golden. Outten won a landmark discrimination case against Morgan Stanley in 2004 and was hired by former Lehman employees in November 2008 for a class action against the bankrupt investment bank over a failure to pay WARN wages. The Lehman case later settled. Mr. Raisner tells The Am Law Daily that Ms. Langely contacted him after receiving her WARN letter from Howrey on March 9. He says that other former Howrey employees have contacted Outten & Golden about pursuing their own claims against their former employer. Mr. Raisner declined to give an exact number on how many Howrey employees have reached out to him. Latham & Watkins restructuring partner Peter Gilhuly in Los Angeles is representing Howrey in its wind down efforts. Mr. Gilhuly declined to comment on Langley's suit. Howrey dissolution committee members Martin Cunniff, who joined Arent Fox last month, and Gregory Commins, Jr., now at Baker & Hostetler, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the filing by Langley. Howrey said in a memo sent to employees last week that Citi's decision to slash funding for payroll was unexpected and left the firm no choice but to terminate employees ahead of the May 9 schedule put forth in March. It said the firm's ability to continue to pay salary and benefits pursuant to its WARN obligations, "was contingent upon the approval of Citibank." Mr. Raisner, who cochairs Outten & Golden's WARN practice, says that in cases like Langley's, "the lender is not the employer and the lender is not responsible" for employment decisions. Mr. Raisner says that when a lender pulls the plug, it's a non- event under the WARN. Mr. Raisner describes Howrey's decision to stop making payroll payments as a "funding" and "business decision" by management on how to allocate its resources as the firm winds down its operations. Other lawyers representing former Howrey employees, such as Los Angeles firm Blum Collins, have stated that they expect to file suits against Howrey over WARN wage claims. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in "Gilmor" Case to Begin Aug. 13, 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the class action against IMPAC Mortgage Holdings, Inc., filed by Michael P. and Shellie Gilmor and others is scheduled to commence on August 13, 2012, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Gilmor, et al. v. Preferred Credit Corp., et. al., Case No. 4:10- CV-00189, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, is a putative class action against Preferred Credit and others charging violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act. In a Sixth Amended Complaint, plaintiffs Michael P. and Shellie Gilmor and others bring suit against Preferred Credit, as the originator of various second mortgage loans in Missouri, and against: IMPAC Funding Corporation; IMPAC Mortgage Holdings; IMPAC Secured Assets; IMPAC Secured Assets CMN Trust Series 1998-1 Collateralized Asset-Backed Notes, Series 1998-1; IMH Assets Corp; Impac CMB Trust Series 1999-1; Impac CMB Trust Series 1999-2; Impac CMB Trust Series 2000-1; Impac CMB Trust Series 2000-2; Impac CMB Trust Series 2001-4; Impac CMB Trust Series 2002-1; Impac CMB Trust Series 2003-5, among numerous others, as alleged holders of notes associated with second mortgage loans originated by Preferred Credit. Plaintiffs complain that at closing Preferred Credit charged them fees and costs in violation of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act. Additionally, Plaintiffs obtained certification of a class of all persons similarly situated. Plaintiffs allege that the IMPAC Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and members of the putative class as alleged holders of notes associated with second mortgage loans originated by Preferred Credit. Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and the members of the putative class, among other things, disgorgement or restitution of all improperly collected charges, the right to rescind all affected loan transactions, the right to offset any finance charges, closing costs, points or other loan fees paid against the principal amounts due on the loans if rescinded, actual and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted. In March 2004, Plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Complaint. On February 26, 2010, U.S. Bank National Association ND and other defendants removed the case to federal court. The case remains pending in federal court. Trial is scheduled to commence on August 13, 2012. The Gilmor class action allege that Impac Funding Corporation was a purchaser, and is a holder, along with other affiliated entities, of second mortgage loans originated by other lenders. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking damages that include disgorgement of interest paid, restitution, rescission, actual damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, pre-judgment interest and punitive damages. No specific dollar amount of damages is specified in the complaint. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend "Baker" Suit ------------------------------------------------ IMPAC Mortgage Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself and its affiliates from the class action lawsuit filed by James and Jill Baker in Missouri, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. Baker, et al. v. Century Financial Group, et al., Case No. 4:04- CV-W-0201-SOW, currently pending in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, is a putative class action against Century Financial and others charging violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act. In particular, in a Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs James and Jill Baker and others bring suit against Century Financial, as the originator of various second mortgage loans in Missouri, and against IMPAC Funding Corporation, IMH Assets Corporation, IMPAC Mortgage Holdings, Inc., IMPAC Secured Assets Corporation, and two terminated IMPAC trusts, among others, as alleged holders of notes associated with second mortgage loans originated by Century Financial. Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and the members of the putative class, among other things, disgorgement or restitution of all allegedly improperly-collected charges, the right to rescind all affected loan transactions, the right to offset any finance charges, closing costs, points or other loan fees paid against the principal amounts due on the loans if rescinded, actual and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The case was subsequently removed to federal court and later remanded by the federal court to the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. The IMPAC Defendants filed an Answer on March 7, 2005. Limited discovery has taken place since this date, including additional discovery responses by certain IMPAC Defendants during 2008. The Baker class action lawsuit allege that Impac Funding Corporation was a purchaser, and is a holder, along with other affiliated entities, of second mortgage loans originated by other lenders. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking damages that include disgorgement of interest paid, restitution, rescission, actual damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, pre-judgment interest and punitive damages. No specific dollar amount of damages is specified in the complaint. MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, is awaiting a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action against it, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. In the first half of 2008, the Company was named as a defendant in 11 (subsequently reduced to nine) purported class action lawsuits and six (subsequently reduced to two) derivative suits. In each of these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs claim to represent a class of investors in the Company's shares who allegedly were injured by misstatements in press releases and SEC filings between May 3, 2004, and January 28, 2008. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and the shareholders of the class they purport to represent. The class action lawsuits have been consolidated into a single legal proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. By court order, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed in the class actions on December 5, 2008, and the cases will proceed as one consolidated case. Similarly, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed in the derivative cases on December 12, 2008, and these cases will likewise proceed as a single case. In the derivative suits, the plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the Company was injured because its directors and certain named officers did not fulfill duties regarding the accuracy of its financial disclosures. A derivative suit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder of a corporation, not on the shareholder's own behalf, but on behalf of the corporation and against the parties allegedly causing harm to the corporation. Any proceeds of a successful derivative action are awarded to the corporation, except to the extent they are used to pay fees to the plaintiffs' counsel and other costs. The derivative cases and the class action cases have all been consolidated before the same court. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the class action and the motion is before the court for decision. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because these specific actions are still in a preliminary stage, the Company says it cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these matters at this time. NUTRACEA: Arizona Court Okays Settlement in Consolidated Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona entered separate orders in October 2010 approving the settlement agreement in the consolidated class action lawsuit against NutraCea, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On February 27, 2009, and on April 27, 2009, securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On May 29, 2009, the cases were consolidated into a single action (the Federal Action) and lead plaintiff was appointed. On July 1, 2009, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 2, 2007 and February 23, 2009. The complaint alleged that the Company filed material misstatements in publicly disseminated press releases and SEC filings misstating the Company's financial condition and certain transactions during the period in question. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 25, 2009. The case has been settled in its entirety with the settlement to be funded by the Company's directors and officers insurance carrier. On October 1, 2010, the District Court of Arizona issued an order approving the settlement, certifying the class and entering judgment dismissing the matter. On October 27, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court also entered an order approving the settlement. PACIFIC MERCANTILE: Gets Approval of $225,000 TILA Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pacific Mercantile Bancorp has obtained final court approval of a $225,000 class settlement it negotiated in a California lawsuit over "TILA" violations, the Company disclosed in its March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. A lawsuit, captioned James Laliberte, et al. vs. Pacific Mercantile Bank, was filed in May 2003 in the California Superior Court for the County of Orange, Case No. 030007092. The lawsuit was initially filed as an individual action by two plaintiffs for alleged violations by the Bank of the Federal Truth in Lending Act or TILA. The two plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint on three occasions, between November 2003 and May 2005, seeking to convert their individual action into a class action suit and adding additional allegations and seeking rescission of all loans made to the members of the class and damages based on allegations of fraud in the inducement of certain loans, unfair business practices and violations of TILA. In each case, the Bank filed demurrers asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a legal basis for any recovery and in each case the trial court sustained the Bank's demurrers and dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit, without prejudice. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the trial court's rulings. In January 2007, the appellate court, in a published decision, affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the plaintiffs' suit, finding that plaintiffs had no right to assert class-wide claims of rescission. Plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court which, in May 2007, denied plaintiffs' petition for review, effectively sustaining the appellate court's ruling. Plaintiffs, abandoning their claims of fraud and unfair business practices on the part of the Bank, then filed a motion with the trial court for class certification limited to the TILA and certain related statutory claims. In January 2008, the trial court denied the motion for class certification, finding that plaintiffs had not shown evidence that there were common questions of law or fact to justify certifying a class and had been unable to introduce any admissible evidence establishing that any statutory violations had occurred during the relevant class period. However, in April 2008, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial court's denial of their motion for class certification on the claims under TILA and the related statutory claims. In April 2009, the appellate court issued an order certifying plaintiff's class action with respect to the TILA claims and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. In November 2010, without any admission of any of plaintiffs' allegations or any wrongdoing on its part, the Bank entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs providing for settlement of all of the claims that were the subject of the class action suit, subject to the approval of the settlement terms by the trial court. The trial court granted final approval of the settlement on March 22, 2011. The settlement agreement provides for the Bank to establish a settlement fund in the amount of $225,000 for payment to the members of the class in full settlement of the class action lawsuit. The settlement agreement further provides that any individual who was eligible to become a member of the class, but elected not to participate in the class action, had the right to receive a payment from the Bank in the same amount received by each of the members of the class, provided that the individual submitted a claim form to the Class Administrator and the claim was accepted by the Bank. A handful of claims were received, but all were rejected by the Bank. No claimant filed an appeal with the Court, so the final settlement amount approved by the court remains at $225,000. The settlement agreement expressly provided for a complete release of all claims against the Bank arising out of the subject matter of the class action suit, except for certain individual claims of the named plaintiffs which were pending in a separate trial proceeding. The settlement also permitted plaintiffs to apply for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs filed such a motion, and on March 22, 2011, the trial court issued an order requiring the Bank to pay fees and costs in the aggregate amount of $738,200. Notice of the ruling was issued on March 25, 2011, and the Bank has a period of 60 days from that date to file an appeal of the trial court's ruling; but has not yet decided whether to do so. In March 2011, the named plaintiffs agreed to a stipulated settlement of and a complete release of their individual claims against the Bank in exchange for the payment to them of an aggregate of $76,000. The Bank said it previously established reserves in case of an adverse result in the class action suit and, therefore, the settlement payment and attorneys' fee award are not expected to materially affect its future operating results or its cash or capital resources. Pacific Mercantile Bancorp -- https://www.pmbank.com/ -- is a California state chartered commercial bank. The company owns all of the stock of Pacific Mercantile Bank (Bank). The capital stock of the Bank is the company's principal asset and substantially all of its business operations are conducted by the Bank, which as a result, accounts for substantially all of its revenues and income. The Bank conducts a commercial banking business in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego counties in Southern California. PUR MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Bio-Alcamid Injectable Gel --------------------------------------------------------------- Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that a man says he was disfigured from an infection he got from an injectable gel used to treat "facial wasting" in HIV patients. The class action seeks punitive damage from the makers of Bio-alcamid, which is used to treat lipoatrophy, loss of fat in the face caused by anti-retroviral drug treatments. Named plaintiff Victor Chapdelaine sued Pur Medical Corp., SkinRx Distribution, Basis Medical Technologies, and Polymekon S.R.L. (of Italy). He also sued John McCahill, "director and controlling mind" of Basis Medical Technologies and Pur Medical; Allan Ward and Chantal Ward, "director and controlling mind[s]" of Pur Medical and SkinRx; and the Universities Dpt. and International Centers of Research On Innovative Materials, of Italy, which is "engaged in research, development and marketing of various products, including Bio-alcamid." Mr. Chapdelaine says the defendants marketed the product as safe and nontoxic after it received approval from Health Canada in 2006. But Mr. Chapdelaine says the treatment was not "subject to any studies that would show long term safety and complications." He says that Bio-alcamid can cause infections and inflammation months or years after being injected, and that implanted material can migrate from the injection point and cause granulomas, or unsightly bumps, to form around the material. "The defendants knew or ought to have known that there were risks associated with the use of Bio-alcamid, that there were significant adverse reactions to this product, that they performed no long term safety research, and that the adverse reactions occurred in such a frequency and were of a serious nature so that utility of this cosmetic product was far outweighed by the risks," the complaint states. Mr. Chapdelaine adds: "Bio-alcamid does not treat any health or life-threatening condition and is purely a cosmetic product." Mr. Chapdelaine says that within 3 years of receiving the injection, he suffered "significant migration of the implanted material into his chin and neck, and severe infection and inflammation caused by the Bio-alcamid, accompanied by significant pain." He underwent "a procedure" to remove the stuff, and 8 months later underwent "a full face lift . . . to allow the removal of the remaining Bio-alcamid." He says the operation was not successful and his prognosis is uncertain. Mr. Chapdelaine seeks class certification, punitive damages for pain and suffering, medical monitoring and expenses, and costs. A copy of the Complaint in Chapdelaine v. Pur Medical Corporation, et al., Case No. S-112152 (B.C. Sup. Ct., Vancouver Registry), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/05/Wasting.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Lemer, Esq. GRANT KOVACS NORELL 400-900 Howe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2M4 Tel: (604) 642- 6363 E-mail: blemer@gkn.ca RADIENT PHARMA: Cohen Milstein Sellers Conducting Investigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, is conducting an investigation to determine whether Radient Pharmaceuticals Corp. and certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by another law firm on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Radient between January 18, 2011 and March 4, 2011, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that Radient and certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding the involvement of the Mayo Clinic in a clinical trial of the company's Onko Sure(R) product, a diagnostic cancer test. Radient issued a press release on January 18, 2011, to report: "progress on its clinical study with Mayo Clinic ("Mayo") for the validation of the Company's US FDA-cleared Onko-Sure(R) in vitro diagnostic (IVD) cancer test as a useful tool in the detection of colorectal cancer in all stages of CRC . . . RPC anticipates it will complete the clinical trial with Mayo in the first quarter of 2011." In an article issued by TheStreet.com on March 7, 2011, the claim that the Mayo Clinic was conducting a clinical trial with Radient was refuted and the Mayo Clinic was quoted as stating: "Mayo is not engaged in clinical studies with Radient and does not have a partnership agreement with Radient." The complaint alleges that as a direct result of Defendants' false statements, Radient's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and dropped substantially after the truth was revealed. Cohen Milstein encourages purchasers of Radient stock or former employees with information concerning this matter to contact the firm. If you are a Radient shareholder and would like to discuss your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without any cost or obligation, call Cohen Milstein's Managing Partner, Steven J. Toll at (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, or e-mail him at stoll@cohenmilstein.com If you purchased the common stock of Radient between Jan. 18, 2011, and March 4, 2011, and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 10, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this action, or you may do nothing and remain an absent class member. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC -- http://www.cohenmilstein.com/-- has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation. The firm's reputation for excellence has repeatedly been recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total over a billion dollars. If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with regard to your rights, please contact either of the following: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Tyler Gaffney Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (888) 240-0775 (202) 408-4600 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com tgaffney@cohenmilstein.com RAYTHEON CO: Judge Says Evidence Not Enough to Support Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Douglas, writing for News Channel 8, reports that a federal judge made it clear on April 5 that without more evidence, a pollution suit filed against Raytheon on behalf of hundreds of St. Petersburg property owners is in danger of failing. "I think you can read the handwriting on the wall as well as I can," U.S. District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington told attorneys in the case. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to Judge Covington with a finding that "there is not enough evidence to support a class action." "I can't ignore that sentence," Judge Covington said. She gave the plaintiffs a series of questions to answer before a weeklong evidentiary hearing begins June 20. "We plan on presenting the evidence the judge wants," attorney Brian Barr said after the hearing. "We still feel very strongly about this case." Raytheon's lawyers had little to say after their courtroom victory. The lawsuit was filed 3-1/2 years ago on behalf of hundreds of property owners near the now-vacant Raytheon defense plant at 1501 72nd St. N. in St. Petersburg. Toxic waste spread from underneath the plant property for decades and formed a large plume of polluted groundwater extending up to a mile away. The industrial chemicals have contaminated at least 19 private irrigation wells but Florida officials say there is no health threat. A cleanup plan will take up to 78 years to carry out. The homeowners say the pollution has decimated the value of 1,350 land parcels. Raytheon lawyers say the area is much smaller. They also argue that home sales in the area are booming. The two legal issues now in contention involve the size of the area and the science used to determine how the stigma of pollution lowers property values. The appeals court questioned the testimony of expert witnesses, saying it wasn't enough to support class action certification. ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Employee Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Baucher, writing for WTAP News, reports that a class-action lawsuit charges that St. Joseph's Hospital failed to pay benefits to hourly and salaried employees terminated prior to its merger with Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital and West Virginia United Health System. The suit, filed in Wood County Circuit Court, names St. Joseph's Healthcare System Limited Partnership and Signature Hospital, LLC. It does NOT name Camden-Clark or West Virginia United Health System. The suit, which seeks punitive damages, charges the benefits include accumulated sick leave and fringe benefits for each hour they worked. The complaint also says the failure to do so was a breach of contract it had agreed to with its employees. While the suit names nine people as plaintiffs . . . the suit is a class action involving all the hospital's employees prior to the merger, which was completed last month to form Camden-Clark Medical Center. TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Dismisses Sudden Acceleration Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Xinhua reports that a U.S. federal judge on April 4 dismissed class-action lawsuits filed by foreign consumers against Toyota over sudden-acceleration problems. U.S. District Judge James Selna gave the ruling in an Orange County court near Los Angeles. But Judge Selna gave attorneys representing 41 plaintiffs from 13 countries another two months to amend their case. Judge Selna said the attorneys should offer more proof related to their claims. Judge Selna also refused to lift an order prohibiting the foreign plaintiffs from being part of the domestic lawsuits, meaning the attorneys cannot share their discovery. The class-action lawsuits filed across the United States allege that Toyota failed to install acceleration override systems, as the company's competitors did. Toyota has blamed the problems on sticky accelerator pedals and poorly fitted floor mats. The foreign plaintiffs are also alleging Toyota violated racketeering laws by conspiring to keep the public from finding out about mechanical or electronic problems that caused the vehicles to suddenly accelerate. Like the domestic class-action lawsuits, the foreign plaintiffs also allege some consumers lost value on their vehicles while others suffered wrongful death or injury because of the sudden- acceleration problems. Attorney Monica R. Kelly, who represents the foreign plaintiffs, said she will argue in the updated complaint that the California court is the best forum for the class-action lawsuits because so much progress has already been made here and it would be inefficient to have each case handled in various places all over the globe. "We're saying the U.S. is a better forum," Ms. Kelly said after the April 4 hearing. Toyota attorney Lisa Gilford argued that the claims from outside the United States should be heard in the country where the consumer lives. "We do not see how they overcome the fundamental problem that these claims should be brought in the plaintiffs' home countries, not in the U.S.," Toyota said in a statement. "While Toyota's U.S. entities were named as defendants, they have little connection to the foreign plaintiffs' claims, as the vast majority of the Toyota models in question are neither designed, nor manufactured, nor sold in the U.S.," the statement said. "In fact, Toyotas are manufactured in at least 26 countries worldwide, and more than 170 corporate entities market and sell Toyotas in at least 170 countries." TRAILER BRIDGE: Continues to Defend Puerto Rico Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Trailer Bridge, Inc., continues to defend itself against civil class actions arising from a 2008 investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice relating to the Puerto Rico trade lane, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On April 17, 2008, the Company received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking documents and information relating to a criminal grand jury investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico ocean carriers. Company representatives have met with United States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the Company's full and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation. The Company has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to the subpoena. To date, neither the Company nor any of its employees has been charged with any wrongdoing in this investigation and the Company will continue to cooperate with government officials. Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in one case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have filed at least 40 purported class actions against domestic ocean carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner Services and the Company. The actions alleged that the defendants inflated prices and engaged in other allegedly anti-competitive conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The actions, which were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated into a single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in the District of Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes. On April 30, 2010, in a non-final order, the Court granted the Company's motion to be dismissed with prejudice as to the claims of the named plaintiffs against the Company. This order will not become final and appealable until further order or judgment is entered by the Court. The Company intends to continue its vigorous defense of these actions, if necessary. Horizon Lines, Crowley Liner Services, Sea Star Lines, LLC, Saltchuck Resources, an affiliate of Sea Star Lines, LLC, and their related companies entered into settlement agreements with certain named direct purchaser plaintiffs on behalf of a purported class of claimants in the MDL 1960 proceeding, while denying any liability for the underlying claims. All of these settlements received Preliminary Approval from the court in August 2010, and notices to the putative class members were mailed in September, 2010. The settling defendants have reported that enough potential claimants have opted-out of the settlement class that the settling defendants have the option to terminate the settlement agreements. The Court has set a date of April 29, 2011, for the settling defendants to declare whether they will terminate all or some of the settlement agreements. It is not clear what impact, if any, such a termination and subsequent class litigation may have on the Company, which is not a party to any of the settlement agreements. Even if the settlement agreements are not terminated, the opt-outs are likely to pursue claims against the settling defendants. It is not clear whether an individual opt-out plaintiff would attempt to bring an action against the Company in such a proceeding or even whether they could do so in light of the Company's dismissal with prejudice from the underlying MDL. Moreover, it is not clear what, if any, impact these settlements, whether or not ultimately terminated or finally approved, will have on further prosecution of the MDL 1960 or other claims on the Company, or on the trade, in general. On March 15, 2011, Horizon Lines, LLC, plead guilty to a charge of violating federal antitrust laws with respect to the Puerto Rico trade lane in which the Company operates. Horizon Lines, LLC was sentenced to pay a fine of $45 million over five years and was placed on criminal probation. It is unclear what, if any, impact the Horizon Lines, LLC plea will have on the civil actions, on the Company, or on the trade, in general. On October 9, 2009, the Company received a Request for Information and Production of Documents from the Puerto Rico Office of Monopolistic Affairs. The request relates to an investigation into possible price fixing and unfair competition in the Puerto Rico domestic ocean shipping business. The Company has indicated to the Puerto Rican authorities that it will cooperate fully with this investigation and have provided requested documents to such authorities. The Company understands that on February 22, 2011, all currently named defendants in the indirect purchaser action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and attorneys representing a putative class of indirect purchasers to resolve all of the alleged claims of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the indirect purchasers related to ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico trade lane. The exact terms of that agreement have not been reported. The Company is not a party to the indirect purchaser litigation, nor is it a party to the reported Memorandum of Understanding. It is unclear what, if any, impact this Memorandum of Understanding will have on the future course of the investigation by the Puerto Rican authorities. Significant legal fees and costs are expected to be incurred in connection with the DOJ investigation, the class actions, and the Puerto Rico Office of Monopolistic Affairs investigation. During the three-month periods ended December 31, 2010, and 2009, costs were approximately $37,000 and $676,000, respectively. During the twelve month periods ended December 31, 2010, and 2009, costs were approximately $679,000 and $1,728,000, respectively. The Company says it is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the DOJ investigation, the civil class actions, or the Puerto Rico Office of Monopolistic Affairs investigation. However, should this result in an unfavorable outcome for the Company, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position and future operations. UNITED STATES: Republicans Seek Legal Fee Cap in Cobell Case ------------------------------------------------------------ According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Mike Scarcella, two House Republicans on April 5 continued their effort to prevent the plaintiffs' lawyers in the Cobell class action from getting more than $50 million in attorney fees for their work in a 15-year-old case. Congressmen Doc Hastings of Washington and Don Young of Alaska, who introduced legislation in March to cap the fees in the class action, accused the plaintiffs' lawyers of deception in statements presented at a Natural Resources subcommittee hearing. Messrs. Hastings and Young said the plaintiffs' attorneys insisted for months that they would not seek more than $99.9 million in fees. Lawyers for lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell -- who is represented by Washington solo practitioner Dennis Gingold and a Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton team -- agreed in a landmark settlement to a range of fees between $50 million and $99.9 million. After Congress approved legislation to authorize the settlement, Ms. Cobell's lawyers announced in Washington's federal trial court that they are entitled to at least $223 million in fees. The attorneys maintain a $223 million award, based on a 14.75% contingency fee arrangement, is consistent with controlling law. The attorneys argue the outcome of the case, and the complexity of the litigation, justify such an award. Messrs. Young and Hastings expressed surprise about the revelation of the contingency arrangement. "Is this a bait-and-switch, a game of Three Card Monte, or a ploy to convince the court that $100 million should be a kind of consolation prize?" Mr. Young said in a prepared statement. In a statement, Mr. Hastings said he wants to ensure that "what is owed to individual Indians under the law isn't fleeced away by a handful of lawyers demanding over $200 million based on a secret deal known only to themselves." Justice and Interior department lawyers declined to participate in the April 5 hearing. In a joint statement, Ms. Cobell's lawyers said: "The settlement terms were vetted for 12 months by members of Congress and their staffs. Each member of Congress who was involved in that extraordinary vetting process understood the terms." The legal fee dispute, Ms. Cobell's attorneys said, is pending in front of a federal judge in Washington. "Political interference in the judicial process would harm 500,000 individual Indians, undermine our system of government and jeopardize the settlement in its entirety," the lawyers said. Fee Hearing Later This Month According to a separate article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Mike Scarcella, a federal judge on April 5 said he will hold a hearing this month over whether the plaintiffs' lawyers who represent a class of Native American farmers and ranchers should receive $60.8 million in legal fees. Judge Emmet Sullivan of Washington's federal trial court asked the Justice Department to submit court papers addressing why he should not grant the plaintiffs' request for $60.8 million for their work in steering the litigation to a $760 million settlement. DOJ Civil Division lawyer Joshua Gardner told Judge Sullivan the government will file the papers in about a week. DOJ lawyers and the plaintiffs' team, led by Joseph Sellers of Washington's Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, agreed in a settlement to a range of fees from $30.4 million to $60.8 million. Last month, Justice attorneys said the plaintiffs' lawyers should receive $30.4 million for their work in the suit, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, which resolved allegations of discrimination in loan processing. "There's a fundamental disagreement between the parties," Judge Sullivan said during a status hearing in federal district court in Washington. In court papers filed April 1, Sellers said $60.8 million -- 8% of the settlement -- is "fully justified." (In addition to Sellers, the plaintiffs' lawyers include David Frantz of Washington's Conlon, Frantz & Phelan, Patton Boggs' Anurag Varma and Sarah Vogel, a solo practitioner in Bismark, N.D.) "The USDA's reference to 8% being the 'top of the range' the parties agreed to in the settlement is irrelevant," Mr. Sellers said. "The plaintiffs sought an award of fees and costs permitted by the settlement, and the factors by which the fee request must be evaluated all favor the award sought." Judge Sullivan, who preliminarily approved the settlement last November, set the legal fee proceeding for April 26, two days before he is scheduled to preside over a hearing to determine the settlement's fairness. The claims process will not begin until 60 days after final approval of the settlement. Judge Sellers said in court he is hopeful the process will begin in this summer. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: May 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Rochelle, bankruptcy columnist at Bloomberg News, reports that although Washington Mutual Inc. says the suit is "entirely without merit," the bank holding company agreed to pay $13 million in settlement of a class action on behalf of individuals who allegedly paid improper fees when they paid off home loans. The suit began in 2005. The bankruptcy court modified the so- called automatic stay to allow the suit to go forward and determine the amount of WaMu's liability. The district judge in the Eastern District of New York certified the lawsuit as a class action in September 2009. WaMu later filed a motion to decertify the class and lost. While an appeal was pending, the parties settled. If the bankruptcy court approves the settlement at a May 2 hearing, WaMu will pay $13 million into a trust to pay customers who allegedly were overcharged for fees when they paid off home loans. XO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Zheng" Derivative Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- XO Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a derivative class action commenced by Youlu Zheng in New York, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On or about June 3, 2010, Youlu Zheng filed a class action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Carl C. Icahn, as the chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, Carl Grivner, Adam Dell, Fredrik Gradin, Vincent J. Intrieri, Keith Meister, Robert Knauss, David S. Schechter, Peter Shea, Harold First, ACF Industries Holding Corp., Arnos Corporation, High River Limited Partnership, Starfire Holding Corp., and XO Holdings, Inc., alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the financing transaction consummated in July 2008 and other related matters. The 2008 transaction refers to the July 2008 Stock Purchase Agreement entered into by XO Holdings and certain affiliates of the Chairman in connection with the issuance and sale of Series A and B Preferred Stock to affiliates of the Chairman. The plaintiffs request that the court rescind the July 2008 financing transaction, award compensatory damages to the class of plaintiffs, award the plaintiff expenses, costs and attorneys' fees, and impose a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff and the class upon benefits improperly received by the defendants. On July 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on September 23, 2010. On December 21, 2010, plaintiffs requested that the court permit them to again amend their complaint to include the 2010 Rights Offering and Reverse Stock Split. On January 5, 2011, defendants filed an opposition to the class certification. Then, on January 28, 2011, plaintiffs filed another request to amend their complaint, this time requesting that the court enjoin the defendants from proceeding with ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal. The 2011 Proposal refers to ACF Holding's January 21, 2011, bid to acquire all of the outstanding XO Holdings' stock not owned by ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share. The case is under consideration and the effect of this case on the Company, if any, is not known at this time. XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a facilities-based, competitive telecommunications services provider that delivers a comprehensive array of telecommunications solutions to business customers, government agencies, telecommunications carriers and service and internet content providers. It offers customers a broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 85 metropolitan markets across the United States. The Company earned revenues in excess of $1.5 billion for 2010 with continued revenue growth and improvement in operating losses over each of the past three years. XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Henzel" Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ XO Holdings, Inc., defends itself against a class action lawsuit commenced by Henzel in Delaware, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On or about January 26, 2011, Henzel, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against XO Holdings, Inc., Carl C. Icahn, as the chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, Carl Grivner, Vincent Intrieri, Harold First, Daniel Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin, Robert Knauss, and David Schechter alleging that XO Holdings and its Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor, and due care. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to adequately consider ACF Industries Holding Corp.'s 2011 Proposal. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the transaction. The Company notes that the case under consideration and the effect of the case on its business, if any, is not known at this time. The 2011 Proposal refers to ACF Holding's January 21, 2011 bid to acquire all of the outstanding XO Holdings' stock not owned by ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share. XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a facilities-based, competitive telecommunications services provider that delivers a comprehensive array of telecommunications solutions to business customers, government agencies, telecommunications carriers and service and internet content providers. It offers customers a broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 85 metropolitan markets across the United States. The Company earned revenues in excess of $1.5 billion for 2010 with continued revenue growth and improvement in operating losses over each of the past three years. XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Murphy" Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ XO Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit commenced by Murphy in New York, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On or about January 28, 2011, Murphy filed a shareholder class action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against XO Holdings, Inc., Carl C. Icahn, as the chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, Carl Grivner, Vincent Intrieri, Harold First, Daniel Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin, Robert Knauss, David Schechter, and ACF Industries Holding Corp., alleging that the individually named defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to engage in an honest and fair sale process and failure to disclose material information to the class concerning ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal; and that the Chairman, XO Holdings, and ACF Holding aided and abetted the Board's breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff asks the court to direct defendants to carry out their fiduciary duties; to declare that the defendants committed a gross abuse of trust; and to enjoin the consummation of the proposed transaction. The Company notes that the case is under consideration and the effect of the case on its business or operations, if any, is not known at this time. The 2011 Proposal refers to ACF Holding's January 21, 2011 bid to acquire all of the outstanding XO Holdings' stock not owned by ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share. XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a facilities-based, competitive telecommunications services provider that delivers a comprehensive array of telecommunications solutions to business customers, government agencies, telecommunications carriers and service and internet content providers. It offers customers a broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 85 metropolitan markets across the United States. The Company earned revenues in excess of $1.5 billion for 2010 with continued revenue growth and improvement in operating losses over each of the past three years. XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Fast" Class Action Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- XO Holdings, Inc., is defending itself against a class action lawsuit commenced by Fast in Delaware, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On February 11, 2011, Fast filed a class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against XO Holdings. Inc., ACF Industries Holding Corp., Carl C. Icahn, as the chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, Carl Grivner, Vincent Intrieri, Harold First, Daniel Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin, Robert Knauss, and David Schechter, alleging that the individually named defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by abandoning the 2010 Rights Offering and Reverse Stock Split in favor of ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal. The complaint also challenges the independence of the Special Committee of the Company's Board of Directors and the application of the provision contained in the July 2008 Stock Purchase Agreement entered into by XO Holdings and certain affiliates of the Chairman in connection with the issuance and sale of Series A and B Preferred Stock to affiliates of the Chairman and which places certain restrictions on the Chairman's ability to effect a transaction that would result in the Chairman obtaining a 90% ownership share in XOH unless such transaction were approved by a special committee of disinterested directors -- the "Standstill Provision". Plaintiff also asks the Court to enjoin the consummation of ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal until the transaction's "financial and procedural unfairness" is rectified; asks the Court to declare that Special Committee process in the Standstill Provision does not satisfy the entire fairness requirement; and asks the Court to declare that the Special Committee is incapable of reviewing ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal. The Company notes that the case is under consideration and the effect of the case on its business or operations, if any, is not known at this time. The "2011 Proposal" refers to ACF Holding's January 21, 2011 bid to acquire all of the outstanding XO Holdings' stock not owned by ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share. The "2010 Rights Offering and Reverse Stock Split" transaction refers to XO Holdings' plans, as announced in October 2010, to offer to holders of the Company's common stock rights to purchase shares of a new class of non-convertible preferred stock (up to $200 million of non-convertible preferred stock). Prior to any issuance of rights, the Company intended to apply for listing of XOH common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market. The Company's application for the Nasdaq listing of XOH common stock would follow a one-for-twenty reverse split of the Company's common stock intended to bring the share price to the level required for Nasdaq listing. The 2008 transaction refer to the July 2008 Stock Purchase Agreement entered into by XO Holdings and certain affiliates of the Chairman in connection with the issuance and sale of Series A and B Preferred Stock to affiliates of the Chairman. XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a facilities-based, competitive telecommunications services provider that delivers a comprehensive array of telecommunications solutions to business customers, government agencies, telecommunications carriers and service and internet content providers. It offers customers a broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 85 metropolitan markets across the United States. The Company earned revenues in excess of $1.5 billion for 2010 with continued revenue growth and improvement in operating losses over each of the past three years. XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Borden" Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ XO Holdings, Inc., is defending itself against a class action lawsuit commenced by Borden in Delaware, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On February 25, 2011, Borden filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against XO Holdings, Inc., Carl C. Icahn, as the chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, Carl Grivner, Robert Knauss, Harold First, Fredrik Gradin, Vincent Intrieri, David Schechter, Daniel Ninivaggi, and ACF Holding on behalf of the public stockholders of XO Holdings. The complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duties by defendants related to ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal including allegations that the Special Committee of the Company's Board of Directors lacked independence to consider and review ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal and that defendants placed personal interests of the individual board members and/or the interests of the Chairman ahead of the interests of the shareholders. The case is under consideration and the effect of this case on the Company, if any, is not known at this time. The "2011 Proposal" refers to ACF Holding's January 21, 2011 bid to acquire all of the outstanding XO Holdings' stock not owned by ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share. XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a facilities-based, competitive telecommunications services provider that delivers a comprehensive array of telecommunications solutions to business customers, government agencies, telecommunications carriers and service and internet content providers. It offers customers a broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 85 metropolitan markets across the United States. The Company earned revenues in excess of $1.5 billion for 2010 with continued revenue growth and improvement in operating losses over each of the past three years. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Has $3.4MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- United Fire & Casualty Company had US$3.4 million at Dec. 31, 2010, and US$3.8 million at Dec. 31, 2009, in direct and assumed asbestos and environmental loss reserves. In addition, the Company had ceded asbestos and environmental loss reserves of US$500,000 at Dec. 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. United Fire & Casualty Company reports its operations in two business segments: property and casualty insurance and life insurance. Its property and casualty insurance segment is comprised of commercial lines insurance, including surety bonds, personal lines insurance and assumed insurance. The Company is based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Facing 485 Pending Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- About 485 individuals who were never employees of Constellation Energy Group, Inc. or Baltimore Gas and Electric Company have pending asbestos claims, each seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based on the theory of "premises liability" and allege that BGE and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases. Cross-claims and third party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions. Constellation Energy Group, Inc.'s utility, Baltimore Gas and Electric, distributes electricity and natural gas in central Maryland. The Company trades and markets wholesale energy through subsidiary Constellation Energy Commodities Group. The Company is based in Baltimore, Md. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Named in Injury and Liability Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Bucyrus International, Inc., has been named as a co-defendant in numerous personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and other substances, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2011. These cases are pending in courts in various states. In most of these cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to accept defense. These cases are in various pre-trial stages. Bucyrus International, Inc. designs and manufactures mining equipment for the extraction of coal, copper, oil sands, iron ore and other minerals in major mining centers throughout the world. The Company is based in South Milwaukee, Wis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenOn Americas Posts $54MM Non-Current Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- GenOn Americas Generation, LLC has identified certain asset retirement obligations within its power generating operations and has a non-current liability of US$54 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2010. GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC has identified certain retirement obligations with its power generating operations and has a non- current liability of US$18 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2010. These asset retirement obligations are primarily related to asbestos abatement at some of GenOn's generating facilities, the removal of oil storage tanks, equipment on leased property and environmental obligations related to the closing of ash disposal sites. During 2010, a third-party consulting firm completed a study on behalf of GenOn to determine the extent of asbestos present at certain of GenOn's generating facilities. The consulting firm also provided GenOn with cost estimates for the removal of the asbestos. As a result, the Company revised the cost estimates associated with its asset retirement obligations for asbestos removal at all of its generating facilities. GenOn Americas Generation, LLC provides energy, capacity, ancillary and other energy services to wholesale customers in competitive energy markets in the United States through ownership and operation of, and contracting for, power generation capacity. The Company is based in Houston. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has Net Reserves of $532.9MM for A&E ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s net reserves for asbestos and environmental claims were US$532.9 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$613.1 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's gross reserves for A&E claims were US$554.8 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$638.7 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's gross reserves for A&E claims represented 5.9% of its total reserves. The Company's A&E liabilities stem from Mt. McKinley's direct insurance business and the Company's assumed reinsurance business. Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s principal business, conducted through its operating segments, is the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company is based in Hamilton, Bermuda. ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Named in Asbestos Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- From time to time, California Water Service Group has been named as a co-defendant in several asbestos related lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2011. Several of these cases against the Company have been dismissed without prejudice. In other cases, the Company's contractors and insurance policy carriers have settled the cases with no effect on the Company's financial statements. California Water Service Group's business is conducted through its operating subsidiaries. The bulk of the business consists of the production, purchase, storage, treatment, testing, distribution and sale of water for domestic, industrial, public and irrigation uses, and for fire protection. The Company is based in San Jose, Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PICO Holdings Facing 28 Open Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- PICO Holdings, Inc. says that, at Dec. 31, 2010, about 28 of its 111 open claims were asbestos-related, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2011. A significant number of the claims received in the past three years relate to asbestos. During 2010, all 16 new claims related to asbestos, and in 2009 all five new claims related to asbestos. The Company's actuaries expect the asbestos claims to develop in a different pattern to workers' compensation claims. Typically, the asbestos claims are shared among numerous insurance carriers and result in relatively small loss and loss adjustment expense payments, with Citation Insurance Company's share of the total settlements being less than 10%. A US$500,000 reserve for late reported asbestos claims was established in 2008. This reserve stood at US$450,000 at Dec. 31, 2010. PICO Holdings, Inc.'s business, as of Dec. 31, 2010, is separated into five operating segments: Water Resource and Water Storage Operations; Real Estate Operations; Insurance Operations in "Run Off;" Corporate; and Agribusiness Operations. The Company is based in La Jolla, Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenOn Energy Records $128MM Liability at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- GenOn Energy, Inc. has a non-current liability of US$128 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2011. These asset retirement obligations are primarily related to asbestos abatement at some of the Company's generating facilities, the removal of oil storage tanks, equipment on leased property and environmental obligations related to the closing of ash disposal sites. During 2010, a third-party consulting firm completed a study on behalf of the Company to determine the extent of asbestos present at certain of the Company's generating facilities. The consulting firm also provided it with cost estimates for the removal of the asbestos. As a result, the Company revised the cost estimates associated with its asset retirement obligations for asbestos removal at all of its generating facilities. GenOn Energy, Inc. provides energy, capacity, ancillary and other energy services to wholesale customers in competitive energy markets in the United States through ownership and operation of, and contracting for, power generation capacity. The Company is based in Houston. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Has 16 Injury Cases at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- There were about 16 asbestos-related lawsuits at Dec. 31, 2010, in which Parker Drilling Company is one of many defendants, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2011. From time to time, the Company is 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 State of Mississippi. The subsidiaries named in these asbestos-related lawsuits intend to defend themselves vigorously. No amounts were accrued at Dec. 31, 2010. Parker Drilling Company is an international provider of contract drilling and drilling-related services currently operating in 12 countries. The Company is based in Houston. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enterprise Products Has $97.1MM ARO at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Enterprise Product Partners L.P.'s asset retirement obligations amounted to US$97.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$54.8 million. The Company's AROs may result from regulatory requirements associated with the renovation or demolition of certain assets containing hazardous substances such as asbestos. Enterprise Product Partners L.P.'s operations include natural gas processing, NGL fractionation, petrochemical services, and crude oil transportation, including 50,200 miles of pipelines and 27 billion cu. ft. of natural gas storage capacity. The Company is based in Houston. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Comments on Inaccurate Dow Jones Article --------------------------------------------------------------- At 5:18 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 28, 2011, the Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review incorrectly reported that the North Carolina bankruptcy judge presiding over the chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, had denied Garlock's motion to obtain asbestos claims data from asbestos trusts, according to an EnPro Industries, Inc. press release dated Feb. 28, 2011. Contrary to the Dow Jones report, Judge George R. Hodges has not yet ruled on Garlock's request. Instead, he ordered that Garlock's motion would be set for hearing after a Delaware bankruptcy court ruled on certain of the trusts' requests for an injunction blocking Garlock from pursuing its motion for trust data before Judge Hodges. On Feb. 22, 2011, the Delaware court denied the trusts' injunction request, clearing the way for Judge Hodges to hear Garlock's motion. Garlock anticipates that Judge Hodges will set a hearing in the near future to consider its motion for trust data. The Dow Jones article misinterpreted an order, entered on Feb. 25, 2011, on a separate preliminary discovery dispute as denying Garlock's request for trust data. The order quoted by Dow Jones denied as premature Garlock's attempt to take a discovery deposition of trust representatives regarding trust allegations that producing trust data requested by Garlock would be burdensome. Judge Hodges ruled that the burden issue was not properly before the court until he determines whether Garlock's request for trust data is appropriate and necessary. The trust motion is one of a series of requests Garlock filed in its North Carolina chapter 11 case to obtain information relevant to determination of Garlock's responsibility for asbestos claims. On Feb. 18, 2011, Judge Hodges issued a bench ruling on the first of those motions, preliminarily granting Garlock's request that each of over 5,000 individuals who, as of the June 5, 2010 petition date, filed a complaint seeking damages from Garlock's based on mesothelioma, complete a questionnaire providing Garlock with certain information regarding such claimant's claim. Judge Hodges directed Garlock, the official claimants' committee and a legal representative for unknown asbestos disease claimants to meet and confer regarding the form of the questionnaire. The Dow Jones story also misstated the number of pending asbestos- related claims that Garlock seeks to resolve as part of its chapter 11 case. As of the filing date, there were about 100,000 such claims, about 5,000 of which involve claimants alleging the disease mesothelioma. Garlock Sealing Technologies, Inc. is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of EnPro Industries, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Posts $24.79MM Dec. 31 Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc. accrues asbestos liabilities of US$24,792,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$24,874,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated March 3, 2011. Standard Motor Products, Inc. manufactures and distributes engine management and air conditioning replacement parts for auto aftermarkets. The Company is based in Long Island City, N.Y. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Motors Facing Product Liability Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal actions, governmental investigations, claims and proceedings are pending against General Motors Company or MLC including a number of shareholder class actions, bondholder class actions and class actions under ERISA and other matters arising out of alleged product defects, including asbestos-related claims. Other issues include employment-related matters; governmental regulations relating to safety, emissions, and fuel economy; product warranties; financial services; dealer, supplier and other contractual relationships; tax-related matters not recorded under ASC 740 and environmental matters. General Motors Company develops, produces and markets cars, trucks and parts worldwide. The Company also provides automotive financing services through General Motors Financial Company, Inc. The Company is based in Detroit, Mich. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BP Plc Subject to Asbestos Exposure Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Legal proceedings are pending or may be brought against BP p.l.c. group entities arising out of current and past operations, including matters related to general environmental claims and allegations of exposures of third parties to toxic substances, such as lead pigment in paint, asbestos and other chemicals. No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2011. BP p.l.c. explores for oil and gas in 30 countries and has proved reserves of 18.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent. The Company is the largest oil and gas producer in the United States and also a top refiner, with stakes in 16 refineries, processing four million barrels of crude oil per day. The Company is based in London. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Arnold Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, affirmed the ruling of the Pierce County Superior Court, in a case involving asbestos filed by Reuben Arnold. Judges Worswick, Armstrong and Van Deren entered judgment in Case No. 40015-4-II on Jan. 11, 2011. This case was the second appeal stemming from a suit against Lockheed Shipbuilding Corporation and other companies, including Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. for asbestos-related injury claims. In the first appeal, this court reversed a summary judgment order granted in favor of Lockheed. This appeal arose out of the trial court's denial of a CR 60(b)(3) motion to vacate the trial court's original summary judgment order based on new evidence. Reuben Arnold died of mesothelioma in March 2008 and his son Daniel also recently died from it. Reuben worked as an insulator with asbestos and was exposed to asbestos at several sites, including Lockheed Shipyard. The plaintiffs in this case sued Lockheed both for Reuben's exposure directly and Daniel's exposure through his father. Lockheed moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. After that, the Arnolds' attorneys uncovered new evidence unavailable to them at the time to support its contention that Lockheed owed a duty of care to Rueben Arnold and Daniel Arnold under its status as a government contractor under the Walsh-Healey Act. After considering the plaintiff's CR 60(b)(3) motion, declarations in support and opposition to the motion, and Lockheed's response, the trial court denied it. The Arnolds then filed this appeal. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Could be Subject to Potential Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- From time to time, FutureFuel Corp. may be parties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including product liability, personal injury, asbestos, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract, environmental, antitrust, health and safety, and employment matters. No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2011. FutureFuel Corp. manufactures biodiesel and other biofuels; however, its core business is specialty chemicals, which include herbicides, detergent additives, colorants, photographic and imaging chemicals, and food additives. The Company is based in Clayton, Mo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinea Action v. Ballantyne Pending in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ballantyne Strong, Inc. is currently a defendant in an asbestos case entitled Manuel H. Chinea and Janet M. Chinea v. American Optical Company, Ballantyne Strong, Inc. a/k/a Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. et al. The case was filed Aug. 17, 2010, in the Superior Court of the State of New York, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2011. The Company is one of 25 defendants. The Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the Company. The dismissal will be final assuming no defendant objects. Ballantyne Strong, Inc. is a manufacturer, distributor, integrator and service provider to the theatre exhibition industry on a worldwide basis. The Company is based in Omaha, Nebr. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $30.33MM Net A&E Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- Global Indemnity Plc's net reserves for asbestos and environmental losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$30,333,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$31,677,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Gross reserves for A&E losses and LAE were US$49,151,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$51,170,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The Company has exposure to A&E claims. The asbestos exposure primarily arises from the sale of product liability insurance, and the environmental exposure arises from the sale of general liability and commercial multi-peril insurance. Included in net unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses were IBNR reserves of US$20.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$21.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. The Company recorded US$10.1 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009 as case reserves for known A&E claims. In 2009, one of the Company's insurance companies was dismissed from a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other unrelated insurance companies. The suit involved issues related to about 3,900 existing asbestos-related bodily injury claims and future claims. The dismissal was the result of a settlement of a disputed claim related to accident year 1984. The survival ratio on a gross basis for the Company's open A&E claims was 5.5 years as of Dec. 31, 2010 and 5.1 years as of Dec. 31, 2009. The survival ratio on a net basis for the Company's open A&E claims was 6.0 years as of Dec. 31, 2010 and 5.7 years as of Dec. 31, 2009. Global Indemnity Plc, a specialty property and casualty insurer, provides its insurance products across a full distribution network: binding authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance. The Company manages the distribution of these products in two segments: Insurance Operations and Reinsurance Operations. The Company is based in Dublin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,081 Open Claims Ongoing v. Ampco at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced 8,081 open asbestos-related claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 8,168 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2011. The Company faced 8,262 open asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 12, 2010) The Company recorded 1,377 resolved claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 3,336 resolved claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Gross settlement and defense costs were US$18,085,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$28,744,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of predecessors of the Company's Air & Liquid Systems Corporation subsidiary and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution and another former division of the Company. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for historical primary and some first-layer excess insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers). Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity allocation formulas, for pending and future claims for Asbestos Liability. The claims against the Company's inactive subsidiary that is in dissolution proceedings, numbering about 400 as of Dec. 31, 2010, are not included within the Coverage Arrangement. The one claim filed against the former division also is not included within the Coverage Arrangement. The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden North America, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former subsidiary of the Company. The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization on access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than the limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access the policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the Products will erode the coverage under the policies available to the Company and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other historical products of the Company and its subsidiaries covered by the applicable policies. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation divides its work in two segments. The forged and cast steel roll arm, comprising subsidiaries Union Electric Steel and Davy Roll, makes forged hardened-steel rolling mill rolls and cast rolls for steel and aluminum manufacturers. The Company is based in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Cleared in Howden Last Dec. 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and a certain carrier concluded a settlement generally consistent with a Coverage Arrangement in a lawsuit filed by Howden North America, Inc. and all claims between that carrier and the Company were dismissed with prejudice on Dec. 8, 2010. On Aug. 4, 2009, Howden filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In the lawsuit, Howden raised claims against certain insurance companies that allegedly issued policies to Howden that do not cover the Company or its subsidiaries, and also raised claims against the Company and two other insurance companies that issued excess insurance policies covering certain subsidiaries of the Company (Excess Policies), but that were not part of the Coverage Arrangement. In the lawsuit, Howden seeks, as respects the Company, a declaratory judgment from the court as to the respective rights and obligations of Howden, the Company and the insurance carriers under the Excess Policies. One of the excess carriers and the Company filed cross-claims against each other seeking declarations regarding their respective rights and obligations under Excess Policies issued by that carrier. The Company's cross-claim also sought damages for the carrier's failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs. The litigation remains pending with respect to the other carrier that issued one of the Excess Policies. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation divides its work in two segments. The forged and cast steel roll arm, comprising subsidiaries Union Electric Steel and Davy Roll, makes forged hardened-steel rolling mill rolls and cast rolls for steel and aluminum manufacturers. The Company is based in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Filed Case in Pa. Last Feb. 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and its Air & Liquid Systems Corporation subsidiary, on Feb. 24, 2011, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against 13 domestic insurance companies, certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and certain London market insurance companies, and Howden North America, Inc. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the respective rights and obligations of the parties under excess insurance policies not included within a Coverage Arrangement that were issued to the Company from 1981 through 1984 as respects claims against the Company and its subsidiary for Asbestos Liability and as respects asbestos bodily-injury claims against Howden arising from the Products. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation divides its work in two segments. The forged and cast steel roll arm, comprising subsidiaries Union Electric Steel and Davy Roll, makes forged hardened-steel rolling mill rolls and cast rolls for steel and aluminum manufacturers. The Company is based in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Long-Term Liability at $193.6M at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was US$193,603,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$147,093,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$138,729,330 as of Sept. 30, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 12, 2010) Current asbestos liability was US$25 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$30 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$124,089,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$95,430,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$18 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$20 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation divides its work in two segments. The forged and cast steel roll arm, comprising subsidiaries Union Electric Steel and Davy Roll, makes forged hardened-steel rolling mill rolls and cast rolls for steel and aluminum manufacturers. The Company is based in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Subject to Potential Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- From time to time, Reading International, Inc. has claims brought against it relating to the exposure of former employees of its railroad operations to asbestos and coal dust. These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990 with the Company's insurance carriers. However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who were not Company employees and who may claim second hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and/or other chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans. In connection with the development of the Company's 50.6 acre Burwood site, it will be necessary to address certain environmental issues. That property was at one time used as a brickworks and the Company has discovered petroleum and asbestos at the site. During 2007, the Company developed a plan for the remediation of these materials, in some cases through removal and in other cases through encapsulation. As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company estimates that the total site preparation costs associated with the removal of this contaminated soil will be US$12.3 million (AU$12.2 million) and as of that date the Company had incurred a total of US$8.4 million (AU$8.3 million) of these costs. Reading International, Inc. is an internationally diversified "hard asset" company principally focused on the development, ownership, and operation of entertainment and real property assets in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. The Company currently operates in two business segments: Cinema Exhibition and Real Estate. The Company is based in Commerce, Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allis-Chalmers Energy Named in Liability Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Since its reorganization under the U.S. federal bankruptcy laws in 1988, Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. has been regularly named in products liability lawsuits primarily resulting from the manufacture of products containing asbestos. In connection with the Company's bankruptcy, a special products liability trust was established and funded to address products liability claims. This product liability trust is in the process of being dissolved. The Company said it believes that product liability claims relating to its business prior to bankruptcy are barred by applicable bankruptcy law. Since 1988, no court has ruled that the Company is responsible for products liability claims. The Company has not manufactured products containing asbestos since its reorganization in 1988. Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. provides services and equipment to oil and natural gas exploration and production companies throughout the United States including Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, and internationally primarily in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Mexico. The Company is based in Houston. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, NATCO Still Facing Exposure Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation or its former subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership, is still party to asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company (or NATCO) is named as a defendant in 251 lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury, primarily pleural abnormality and/or asbestosis, and/or death, from exposure to asbestos on the Company's vessels. The vast majority of these lawsuits have been filed in the Northern District of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of Michigan. All cases filed in federal courts were consolidated in Philadelphia in 1990 under the multi-district litigation process. All of the maritime cases, including those filed against the Company prior to 1996, were administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since that time have similarly been administratively transferred to the inactive docket. Over the last year, the Philadelphia presiding judge has reactivated hundreds of lawsuits in an effort to clean out the administrative docket. Before commencing discovery in any of the reactivated cases, counsel for plaintiffs agreed to name a group of cases that they intended to pursue and to dismiss the remaining cases without prejudice. Plaintiffs have now named 3,384 cases that they intend to pursue, including 33 cases against the Company, each of which involves one plaintiff. No discovery schedule has been set to date. The remaining cases against the Company either have been or will be dismissed. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation provides dredging services in the United States. The Company operates in two reporting segments: dredging and demolition. The Company is based in Oak Brook, Ill. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Facing Injury Cases in Four States ---------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable, which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. The Company maintains general liability insurance that has applied to these claims. To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defenses of these claims have been handled by the applicable insurance companies. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate. Houston Wire & Cable Company provides wire and cable and related services to the U.S. market. The Company is based in Houston. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39 Suits Pending v. American Locker at March 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- The balance of unresolved asbestos cases against American Locker Group Incorporated as of March 9, 2011, the most recent date information is available, is about 39 cases, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2011. Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through March 15, 2011, the Company has been named as an additional defendant in about 226 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts and one in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to such products. The assets of this division were sold by the Company in 1973. During the process of discovery in certain of these actions, documents from sources outside the Company have been produced which indicate that the Company appears to have been included in the chain of title for certain wall panels which contained asbestos and which were delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards. Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered in about 31 cases with funds authorized and provided by the Company's insurance carrier. Further, over 157 cases have been terminated as to the Company without liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural rules. American Locker Group Incorporated manufactures lockers, locks and keys with a wide-range of applications for use in numerous industries. The Company is best known for manufacturing and servicing the widely-utilized key and lock system with the iconic plastic orange cap. The Company is based in Grapevine, Tex. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Has $1.6MM Dec. 31 ARO Liability --------------------------------------------------------------- At Dec. 31, 2010, Southern Star Central Corp.'s regulatory asset was US$1 million and its related asset retirement obligation liability was US$1.6 million. In 2005, in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), Interpretation concerning Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. recorded an asset retirement obligation for the remediation of asbestos existing on its system. The asbestos existing on Central's system is primarily in building materials and pipe coatings used prior to the Clean Air Act of 1973 that established the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), that regulates the use of asbestos. Central began recovering asset retirement obligations in its rates in 2008. Southern Star Central Corp. operates as a holding company for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations and development opportunities. The Company is based in Owensboro, Ky. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Has $277T Reserve for Gradall Plant ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$277,000 concerning a potential asbestos issue in Gradall's facility in New Philadelphia, Ohio that is expected to be remediated over time. On Dec. 31, 2010, the Company had an environmental reserve in the amount of US$1,495,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's facility. Three specific remediation projects that were identified prior to the acquisition are in process of remediation with a remaining reserve balance of US$30,000. The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third party company located near the Gradall facility. Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures, distributes and services high quality equipment for right-of-way maintenance and agriculture. The Company's products include tractor-mounted mowing and other vegetation maintenance equipment, street sweepers, excavators, vacuum trucks, snow removal equipment, pothole patchers, zero turn radius mowers, agricultural implements and related aftermarket parts and services. The Company is based in Seguin, Tex. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant's Motion Denied in Aultman Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division, denied defendant's motion in a case involving asbestos styled Aultman, Tyner & Ruffin, Ltd. v. Capital Rubber & Specialty Co., Inc., et al. District Judge Keith Starret entered judgment in Civil Action No. 2:10cv223KS-MTP on Jan. 21, 2011. This litigation was a suit for breach of contract, wherein the defendant Capital Rubber & Specialty Co., Inc. allegedly breached its agreement to pay to Aultman Tyner attorneys fees and out of pocket expenses in relation to representation in asbestos litigation. CR & S is a Louisiana corporation not licensed to conduct business in the State of Mississippi. Aultman Tyner & Ruffin, Ltd. is a licensed Mississippi law firm. Aultman, Tyner initially filed suit in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, Miss. In response to the state suit, CR & S filed a Motion to Stay or to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer to challenge personal jurisdiction and to raise the issue with the inconvenience of the forum. After the issues were briefed the State Court received evidence in the form of affidavits and counter-affidavits and heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on June 25, 2010. Circuit Judge Robert Helfrich took the matter under advisement after the hearing. Aultman, Tyner asserts that no discovery, or other action had occurred in the state court case and it remained pending in the Circuit Court of Forrest County as the parties await Judge Helfrich's decision on the Motion to Dismiss. On Sept. 10, 2010, Aultman Tyner filed the Complaint in the instant matter asserting diversity jurisdiction. The Complaint in the instant matter was identical to the Amended Complaint filed in State Court. CR & S had filed a Motion to Stay or to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Transfer this matter to Louisiana in this litigation. Defendant's Motion for Stay and/or to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer was Denied. ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $6,075 Fine to Keystone Contracting --------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued US$6,075 in penalties to Keystone Contracting, Inc., a Ridgefield, Wash.- based contractor, for failing to timely notify the state about several emergency and non-emergency asbestos-removal projects it conducted between August 2010 and January 2011 in Portland, St. Helens, Lake Oswego and Sandy, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated March 24, 2011. In mid-January 2011, DEQ issued a US$1,350 penalty to Keystone Contracting Inc. for failing to submit a notification and fee to DEQ within three days of conducting an emergency asbestos removal project on Aug. 31, 2010 at a residence at 7550 SW 83rd Ave., in Portland. DEQ issued the penalty because timely notifications allow DEQ to stay informed about the current status of asbestos abatement activities in an area and throughout the state. In issuing the penalty, DEQ noted that Keystone Contracting committed the same violation for an emergency asbestos removal project in Milwaukie in December 2009. DEQ had issued a warning letter for the violation, stating that the notification and payment of fee were required for any such projects in the future. Keystone Contracting paid the above- listed US$1,350 penalty in full on March 16, 2011. On March 7, 2011, DEQ issued additional penalties to Keystone Contracting as the state discovered the company committed additional violations at four other locations. DEQ issued a US$1,350 penalty for failing to notify DEQ at least 10 days before starting a non-emergency asbestos removal project at a house at 4333 SE 104th Ave. in Portland. The DEQ then issued another US$3,375 in penalties for failing to submit notification and a fee for at least three days before starting work on three emergency asbestos removal projects, at 375 NE Fifth St., St. Helens; 12442 27th Place in Lake Oswego; and at 18080 Tupper Road in Sandy. Keystone Contracting has appealed its latest penalties, which amount to US$4,725. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mansell, Woodlands Fined for Safety Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Woodlands Plant Hire Ltd, an Ickleton, England-based plant hire company, and Mansell Construction Services Ltd, a Croydon, England-based construction services firm, have been fined for exposing employees and members of the public to asbestos, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated March 28, 2011. An HSE investigation found Mansell and Woodlands put workers and the public at risk by failing to properly manage the presence of asbestos during the refurbishment of a residential block of flats, between Nov. 24, 2009 and Dec. 8, 2009. During the work in an occupied London Borough of Hackney block of flats, asbestos insulation board was disturbed and removed by Woodlands, an unlicensed contractor, potentially releasing the asbestos into the air. A previous survey, identifying the presence of asbestos insulation board in a number of the properties, had been provided to Mansell, but had not been acted upon or passed to their sub-contractors. Mansell Construction Services Ltd pleaded guilty and was fined GBP50,000 at the Old Bailey for breaching Regulation 22(1)(a) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. Woodlands Plant Hire Ltd pleaded guilty of breaching regulations 5, 8(1) and 11(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, and was fined GBP50,000. The companies were ordered to pay joint costs of GBP20,690. HSE Inspector Dominic Ellis said, "Despite recent high profile campaigns on the dangers of working with asbestos, this case sadly illustrates some companies are still failing to manage the risks robustly. "Mansell had information that asbestos was present, yet neglected to act on it, meaning a licensable asbestos material was removed in an uncontrolled manner, needlessly risking the health of contractors and members of the public." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quarnmill Construction Fined for Safety Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Quarnmill Construction Ltd, an Aston-on-Trent, England-based construction company, has been fined for its role in exposing workers to asbestos in Derby, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated March 23, 2011. Quarnmill Construction was preparing the former Allens Printers building in Webster Street for demolition in October 2009 and had employed a contractor to remove asbestos-containing materials. The Company provided the contractor with a survey detailing the work to be done, but did not check his suitability to carry out the work, or that he held a license to remove asbestos, as required by law. Once work was underway, Quarnmill informed the HSE that they thought the site had become contaminated with asbestos as a result of the work the contractor had carried out. Quarnmill Construction Ltd, of Derby Road, Aston on Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 4(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 for allowing such failings at a site it controlled. On March 23, 2011, the Company was fined GBP13,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP2,700 by Derby magistrates. After the hearing, HSE inspector Carol Southerd commented, "Quarnmill did not check the competence of the contractor to do this job nor that he had a suitable license. This check is required by law. "His unsuitability was eventually discovered after a consultant checked the HSE website and reported him, but by this time it was too late." ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Local Fined for Disposal Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Yi, a 45-year old resident of Santa Clarita, Calif., was convicted on March 29, 2011 of five environmental charges related to the improper renovation of a San Fernando Valley, Calif., apartment complex -- work that caused asbestos to be released into the complex and the surrounding community, according to a U.S. Department of Justice press release dated March 29, 2011. Following a two-week trial in U.S. District Court, Mr. Yi was was found guilty of five felony offenses, including conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act. The jury also convicted Mr. Yi of failing to notify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Coast Air Quality Management District about a renovation containing asbestos, failing to provide a properly trained person during a renovation containing asbestos, failing to properly remove asbestos and failing to properly dispose of asbestos wastes. Mr. Yi faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in federal prison when he is sentenced on June 6, 2011, by U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson. Mr. Yi was the owner of the now-defunct Millennium Pacific Icon Group, which owned the Forest Glen apartment complex, a 204-unit complex in Winnetka, Calif., that was being converted into condominiums in 2006. Knowing that asbestos was present in the ceilings of apartments in the Forest Glen complex, Mr. Yi and his co-conspirators hired a group of workers who were not trained or certified to conduct asbestos abatements. The workers scraped the ceilings of the apartments without knowing about the asbestos and without wearing any protective gear. The illegal scraping resulted in the repeated release of asbestos- containing material throughout the apartment complex and the surrounding area because Santa Ana winds were blowing during the time of the illegal work. After the illegal asbestos abatement was shut down by an inspector from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the asbestos was cleaned up at a cost of about US$1.2 million. Assistant Attorney General Ignacia S. Moreno for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division said, "Mr. Yi knowingly violated federal laws that set standards for proper disposal of asbestos and placed the workers that he hired at an unacceptable risk of exposure. As this conviction shows, we will aggressively prosecute those who deliberately ignore the nation's Clean Air Act." The federal Clean Air Act requires those who own or supervise the renovation of buildings that contain asbestos to adhere to certain established work practice standards. These standards were created to ensure the safe removal and disposal of the asbestos and the protection of workers. Nick Torres, Special Agent in Charge of the EPA's criminal enforcement program in California, said, "Exposure to asbestos can be fatal. The defendant knew his operation produced waste material that contained asbestos and, despite being told by inspectors to stop removing it, the illegal asbestos removal continued." Previously in this case, two co-conspirators pleaded guilty. The 40-year-old John Bostick, of Santa Clarita, who was the vice president of Millennium Pacific Icon Group, pleaded guilty on Feb. 23, 2011, to conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act. Mr. Bostick, who faces a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison, is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Anderson on May 2, 2011. On June 14, 2010, the 33-year-old Joseph Yoon, of Studio City, Calif., who was the project manager on the Forest Glen conversion, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act. He, who is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Anderson on April 25, 2011, faces a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison. The jury that convicted Mr. Yi on the five counts on March 29, 2011 also acquitted Yi of one count of failing to inspect for asbestos prior to conducting an asbestos renovation. The case against Mr. Yi, Mr. Bostick and Mr. Yoon was investigated by the EPA's Office of Criminal Enforcement, the California South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bayron T. Gilchrist of the Environmental Crimes Section and Senior Trial Attorney David P. Kehoe of the U.S. Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division. ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Gilsonite Files for Chap. 11 Bankruptcy --------------------------------------------------------------- United Gilsonite Laboratories, a Scranton, Pa.-based manufacturer of paints, coatings and sealants, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, The Times Tribune reports. UGL cited the continuing burden of asbestos-related litigation in its petition for protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Company employs about 150 people, including about 80 at its plant on Jefferson Avenue in Dunmore, Pa. Company spokeswoman Michele Margotta Neary said, "Since the 1980s, these asbestos lawsuits have been coming little by little. We went into this financially sound with absolutely no debt. As far as we are concerned, it's business as usual." The Company seeks court approval to establish a trust fund to settle outstanding claims and an injunction preventing asbestos- related awards except though the trust. UGL used asbestos in joint compound, a cement-like construction sealant, but halted the practice in the late 1970s, Company President Thomas White said in a court document. Nevertheless, Mr. White's declaration says, UGL and its insurers have paid more than US$25 million in asbestos-related claims, including more than US$2 million over the last three months. He added that UGL faces more than 900 ongoing asbestos claims. If the court approves the establishment of a trust, UGL and its insurers would create a pool of revenue and claimants would petition a committee for payments, Mrs. Neary said. UGL recorded sales of US$49 million in 2010, Mr. White's statement said. The Company did not submit required schedules of assets and liabilities, but estimates assets at US$10 million to US$50 million and liabilities of US$1 million to US$10 million. UGL filed documents indicating it owes more than US$1.1 million to its 20 largest unsecured creditors, including US$280,783 to Ashland Distribution, a chemical company based in Dublin, Ohio, and US$202,922 to Momentive Specialty Chemicals, which is based in Columbus, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swindon Local Fined GBP500 for Disposal Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Marsh, a 53-yaer-old resident of Swindon, England, has been fined GBP500 after admitting dumping a bag of asbestos outside a business in the Cheney Manor Industrial Estate, the Swindon Advertiser reports. At Swindon Magistrates' Court, Mr. Marsh pleaded guilty to the charge. The court heard that Mr. Marsh left the bag on land at unit 2 in Darby Close on Feb. 13, 2010, after being spotted unloading the rubbish from his car. When the owner of the premises approached him to ask what he was doing, Mr. Marsh drove off. The matter was then reported to Swindon Council's Environmental Health Department. Following their investigations, Mr. Marsh was prosecuted under section 33(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. When interviewed by environmental enforcement officers, he said he had gone to the Household Waste Recycling Centre with the rubbish unaware there was asbestos in one of the bags. Mr. Marsh was advised he needed to seal the bag and pay a fee for the disposal of the asbestos. However, Mr. Marsh said he did not have any money on him or material to seal the bag. Mr. Marsh said he did not think leaving the rubbish was fly- tipping and that he had intended to collect the bag of asbestos later on, but had forgotten to do so. After hearing Mr. Marsh's guilty plea and listening to the facts of the case, magistrates ordered him to pay a GBP500 fine and full costs of GBP727.50. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cirencester Resident's Death Related to Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Cheltenham heard that the death of 75-year-old James Cordell, a retired engineer from Bowling Green Lane, Cirencester, England, was related to occupational exposure to asbestos, this is Gloucestershire.com reports. The inquest heard Mr. Cordell was exposed to asbestos when he oversaw extensive work in the boiler house and dye shop at the plant. The former managing director died from mesothelioma on Aug. 15, 2011. Mr. Cordell's widow, Sheila Cordell, told Gloucestershire assistant deputy coroner Sally Scanlon that he latterly ran his own company in Cirencester until he retired at the age of 65. Mr. Cordell made a statement before his death in which he outlined the various places where he had been employed over the years. He was an engineering draftsman and designer and from 1962 to 1967 and worked for Pasolds, the company that made Ladybird children's clothing at Langley, near Slough. He was also maintenance manager for the plant, and oversaw a major refit of the boiler and dye houses on the site. Consultant oncologist at Cheltenham General Hospital Dr. David Ferrugia first saw Mr. Cordell when he was referred with chest pain and weight loss. He said a tumor was found on Mr. Cordell's lung and a biopsy found that it was malignant mesothelioma. A post mortem found that he had asbestos fibers in his lungs. Recording a verdict of death from industrial disease, the coroner said, "His work history shows a clear link with asbestos in the 1960s and this led to his death." ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4.2MM OK'd for Fort Wayne Renovation, Abatement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Allen County Board of Commissioners in Fort Wayne, Ind., awarded US$4.2 million in bids for City-County Building renovations and asbestos abatement on March 25, 2011, wane.com reports. According to Allen County Commissioners, the work will be done as part of the relocation of many County administrative offices to 200 East Berry Street and the eventual occupation of the CCB by City and County Police. The project's construction manager, W.A. Sheets & Sons, will now begin preparing contracts between the Board of Commissioners and each of the low bidders. Moreover, Environmental Management Specialists, Inc. was awarded the asbestos abatement work with a bid of US$1,066,371. Including management and consulting fees and other costs associated with the projects, the total cost of the CCB renovation and asbestos abatement stands at about US$4.8 million. The CCB renovation work is expected to start later in the spring once renovation of the City-owned building at 200 East Berry is finished and offices have relocated. The abatement of asbestos-containing materials will involve areas of the CCB directly affected by the renovation project. Those materials include floor tile and adhesive, transite wall panels, fireproofing material and thermal system insulation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCJ Probes Zurbrugg Site for Disposal Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- According to Peter Aseltine, spokesman for the New Jersey Attorney General, the Division of Criminal Justice is investigating allegations of improper handling and disposal of asbestos at the site of the former Zurbrugg Hospital in Riverside, N.J., phillyBurbs.com reports. Mr. Aseltine said, "We're working with a number of agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, the Department of Labor and the Department of Corrections." The state also has hired Atlantic Response, a New Brunswick contractor experienced in handling asbestos. Township Administrator Meghan Jack said she learned of the investigation on March 28, 2011. Local officials are awaiting the state's results before taking any action. Mr. Aseltine did not identify the root of the investigation, citing its ongoing status, and would not name any individual or parties being scrutinized for possible wrongdoing. No criminal charges have been filed. Neighbors of the Franklin Street site have complained about it for months. Most recently, residents approached the Township Committee to air their concerns about what they have witnessed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: HUD Probes Youngstown's $11T Fee for Abatement --------------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development investigator is looking into whether the city of Youngstown, Ohio, paid US$11,000 to a company to remove asbestos without first receiving proper documentation that the work had been done, Vindy.com reports. Steve Novotny, a former city consultant, filed the complaint with HUD through its website in November 2010. He contended the city paid US$11,000 in federal funds to a company to remove asbestos from eight properties without providing proper documentation for the work. Mayor Jay Williams confirmed on March 29, 2011 that an HUD official contacted the city about three weeks ago and that an investigator from the federal agency is reviewing documentation in connection to a complaint filed with the agency by Mr. Novotny. At the time of the complaint, Mr. Novotny served as the city's housing deconstruction program coordinator. He received US$30,000 from a federal grant he wrote while a city planning department intern to serve as the program's coordinator. The money ran out at the end of 2010. Mr. Novotny contended the city paid a company about US$11,000 in federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program money to remove asbestos from eight houses -- three on West Ravenwood, two on Idlewood, and one each on East Lucius, East Philadelphia and Trenton -- without providing proper documentation. Mr. Novotny confirmed on March 29, 2011 that he's been interviewed by an HUD investigator. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawrence Company Penalized for Safety Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said that a lawsuit has been filed against Environmental Restoration Services Corporation (ERSC), a Lawrence, Mass.-based company, and its president for failing to follow proper procedures and safety precautions while removing asbestos-containing materials from a senior center in Gardner, Mass., according to a Mass. AG press release dated March 29, 2011. The lawsuit, filed on March 29, 2011 in Suffolk Superior Court against ERSC and its president, Jorge Elias, seeks civil penalties for violations of the Massachusetts Clean Air Act. According to the complaint, ERSC, a licensed asbestos removal contractor, and Mr. Elias engaged in the illegal removal of asbestos-containing materials from the Gardner Senior Center during its conversion renovation in June 2009. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in the removal process without the authorization or approval from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) or the City of Gardner's consultant. The complaint alleges that Mr. Elias and ERSC completely gutted the first floor of the Senior Center and partially removed vinyl asbestos floor tiles from the basement. According to the complaint, the defendants dumped the broken pieces of dry vinyl asbestos floor and other asbestos-containing materials with demolition debris removed from the first floor into a 40-yard roll-off open top container in the parking lot of the Senior Center. The complaint further alleges that the defendants did not cover or contain, wet, label, or seal the asbestos- contaminated demolition debris that was stored in the container, in the parking lot, or on the ground, as required by law. AG Coakley said, "Asbestos is a dangerous material that when improperly removed can remain suspended in the air for long periods of time. Exposure to asbestos can create a serious health risk. It is extremely important that the proper removal and disposal procedures are followed to ensure the health and safety of the public and our office will aggressively pursue those who violate the laws." MassDEP Commissioner Kenneth L. Kimmell said, "The actions taken here were under the guise of licensed asbestos removal, but, in fact, broke the very laws covering the removal and disposal of asbestos that are in place to protect public health and the environment. Most licensed contractors do the job right, so those who try to cut corners need to be rooted out." The City hired the consultant to ensure that the asbestos removal was completed in accordance with MassDEP regulations. Under MassDEP regulations, the removal of asbestos must be performed by a licensed contractor with notification as to when the removal will occur and requires certain methods and standards for removal, safety, storage, and disposal of the asbestos throughout the abatement process. Assistant Attorney General Betsy Harper of AG Coakley's Environmental Protection Division is handling the case. Mary Jude Pigsley, Greg Levins, and Don Heeley are working on the case for MassDEP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l. to Fund Trust for Asbestos Victims -------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Gordon, Esq., said on March 29, 2011 that RPM International Inc. will contribute an unspecified amount of money to win protection from future asbestos lawsuits, Bloomberg reports. Mr. Gordon said before a U.S. Judge at a hearing in Wilmington, Del., that the Company "understands" that it must put money into a court-approved trust for asbestos victims in order to win immunity from future lawsuits aimed at its bankrupt subsidiaries. The units mentioned are Specialty Products Holding Corp. and Bondex International Inc. Specialty Products and Bondex filed for bankruptcy in 2010 without saying how they would fund an asbestos trust. Since then, the judge overseeing the case, Judith K Fitzgerald, has asked Specialty and Bondex whether the Company and its related operating companies would contribute to an asbestos trust. RPM Chief Financial Officer Robert L. Matejka did not immediately return a call or e-mail requesting a comment. The bankruptcy case is In re Specialty Products Holdings Corp., 10-11780, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington). ASBESTOS UPDATE: JM Realty, McGrail Issued Penalty of $200,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that JM Realty Management, Inc., a Boston-based real estate development and property management company and president John McGrail pled guilty and were sentenced on March 24, 2011 for the improper removal and disposal of asbestos and for failing to provide pay records and evading unemployment insurance payments, according to a Mass. AG press release dated March 25, 2011. The pleas are the result of an investigation by the Massachusetts Environmental Crimes Strike Force (ECSF), an interagency unit which is overseen by AG Coakley, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Commissioner Kenneth L. Kimmell and Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr. The ECSF comprises prosecutors from the Attorney General's Office, Environmental Police Officers assigned to the Attorney General's Office, and investigators and engineers from the MassDEP who investigate and prosecute crimes that harm or threaten the state's water, air, or land and that pose a significant threat to human health. Following the changes of plea, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Regina Quinlan ordered the 44-year-old Mr. McGrail, of Boston and, JM Realty collectively to pay US$200,000 in fines and sentenced the defendants to three years probation under the condition that they not violate applicable federal, state or local laws including those governing protection of the environment, unemployment insurance, withholding taxes, and fair labor practices. The defendants must also provide all employees involved with the development of real estate with asbestos awareness training and retain the services of an independent auditor to review the actions of the defendants and associated companies to ensure their compliance with environmental and labor laws. Mr. McGrail pled guilty to charges of violating the Massachusetts Clean Air Act for failure to file notices of asbestos removal with the MassDEP and failure to comply with procedures for asbestos emissions control. He also pled guilty to charges of evasion of unemployment insurance (four counts) and failure to provide pay records (four counts). JM Realty pled guilty to charges of violating the Massachusetts Clean Air Act for failure to file notices of asbestos removal with the MassDEP (two counts), failure to comply with procedures for asbestos emissions control (two counts), and improper disposal of asbestos waste. JM Realty also pled guilty to charges of evasion of unemployment insurance (four counts) and failure to provide pay records (four counts), and failure to withhold income tax (four counts). For three years between 2005 and 2007, Mr. McGrail, the principal of JM Realty and the founder of a group of businesses known as the Mayo Group, instructed his employees to perform demolition and renovation services at three different Mayo Group properties in Lynn, Boston, and Worcester, that had asbestos containing materials and other building components, according to former Mayo Group employees. Those employees informed the Attorney General's Office that asbestos containing materials were transferred to a warehouse in South Boston, and thereafter asbestos debris was distributed in dumpsters at various Mayo Group properties around Boston for regular trash disposal. None of these locations were permitted for the disposal of asbestos waste. Mr. McGrail and JM Realty violated the Massachusetts Clean Air Act by failing to notify MassDEP of asbestos demolition, failing to follow mandated asbestos removal procedures during the demolition and renovation, and improperly disposing of asbestos waste. During the time this work was going on, Mr. McGrail's employees paid workers, failed to withhold taxes, make unemployment insurance contributions, or provide pay stubs for the workers. A Suffolk County Grand Jury returned indictments against JM Realty and Mr. McGrail on March 25, 2010. He was arraigned in Suffolk Superior Court on April 2, 2010, at which time he entered a plea of not guilty and was released on personal recognizance. JM Realty was arraigned on May 11, 2010, in Suffolk Superior Court at which time a plea of not guilty was entered. Mr. McGrail and JM Realty pled guilty on March 23, 2011, and were sentenced. Worcester Commons, LLC, a company owned by Mr. McGrail, also pled guilty to charges of violating the Clean Air Act for failure to file notices of asbestos removal with the MassDEP (two counts), failure to comply with procedures for asbestos emissions control (two counts), and improper disposal of asbestos waste (one count). In February 2007, MassDEP employees observed demolition debris being thrown out of a window at Worcester Commons, a property owned by Worcester Commons, LLC, a limited liability company owned by the Mayo Group. A subsequent inspection conducted by authorities resulted in the discovery of impacted asbestos containing material within the building and in a waste pile and disposal trailer on the property's premises. Asbestos from the site was scheduled for disposal at a landfill that was not a designated site for the disposal of asbestos waste. MassDEP issued a cease and desist order in the spring of 2007, following an inspection that found impacted asbestos containing material on the second floor of the building, and subsequently found that unauthorized asbestos removal continued in other parts of the 10-story building where residents continued to reside, posing a risk to both residents and the workers involved. Worcester Commons, LLC violated the Massachusetts Clean Air Act by failing to notify MassDEP of asbestos demolition, failing to follow mandated asbestos removal procedures during the demolition and renovation, and improperly disposing of asbestos waste. A Worcester County Grand Jury returned indictments against the Worcester Commons, LLC, on Jan. 23, 2009. Worcester Commons, LLC was arraigned in Worcester Superior Court on Feb. 23, 2009, at which time it entered a plea of not guilty. Worcester Commons, LLC pled guilty on March 23, 2011, and was placed on pre-trial probation. Assistant Attorneys General Andrew Rainer, Jesse Siegel, Wendoly Langlois, and Brendan O'Shea of AG Coakley's Environmental Crimes Strike Force, prosecuted this case with the involvement of Massachusetts Environmental Police and Don Heeley, Gregory Levins, and Mary Jude Pigsley from the MassDEP Central Regional Office and John MacAuley, Ken Atkinson and Karen Golden Smith from the MassDEP Northeast Regional Office. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Rulings in Evans' Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued rulings in a case involving asbestos styled James I. Evans, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judges Moorman, Lance and Schoelen entered judgment in Case No. 08-2133 on Jan. 28, 2011. Judge Schoelen concurred in part and dissented in part. Mr. Evans appealed an April 17, 2008 Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that denied his claim of entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a collapsed lung, remanded his claims of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder and to a compensable evaluation for residuals of a fractured distal left fibular shaft, and dismissed his claims for asbestos exposure, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. Mr. Evans served on active duty in the U.S. Army from August 1968 until August 1970. In July 2003, he filed a claim with the St. Petersburg, Fla. regional office (RO), seeking entitlement to service connection for a back condition, bilateral wrist conditions, hepatitis C, carpel tunnel syndrome, a collapsed lung, drug addiction, and a lung condition due to asbestos exposure. Mr. Evans also sought a compensable rating for his service- connected distal left fibular shaft fracture and the reopening of a previously denied claim for a forehead injury. At a later date, he added claims for an eye condition, hepatitis B, a stab wound to the chest, and a heart condition. In February 2004, the RO issued a rating decision that disposed of 16 separate claims. Within that decision, the RO continued Mr. Evans' noncompensable rating for his fibular shaft fracture, denied entitlement to a non-service-connected pension, and also denied reopening of his claim for the residuals of a forehead injury. The decision further denied entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, the residuals of a stab wound to the chest, the residuals of a collapsed lung, asbestos exposure, heart trouble, drug and alcohol addiction, hepatitis B and C, a back disability, carpal tunnel syndrome, a scar on the left wrist, and bilateral plantar fasciitis. Mr. Evans filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) to the RO's decision with respect to his claims for asbestos exposure, a back disability, a collapsed lung, hepatitis B and C, and his distal left fibular shaft fracture. He also raised new claims for a neck condition, migraines, and memory loss. However, he did not express any disagreement with the other 10 claims decided by the RO in the February 2004 decision. In September 2004, the RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) with respect to the six claims referenced in Mr. Evans' NOD. The RO also issued a rating decision with respect to Mr. Evans' newly filed claims for a neck condition, migraines, and memory loss. In January 2008, the Board provided a hearing for Mr. Evans. In the decision now on appeal, the Board fully addressed the three "issues" specifically outlined in Mr. Evans' Form 9; however, the Board dismissed his claims for asbestos exposure, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. The Board's April 17, 2008, decision was reversed with respect to the Board's determination that Mr. Evans' claims for asbestos exposure, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C were no longer in appellate status, and the matters were remanded to the Board for further proceedings. The appeal as to Mr. Evans' claim for service connection for memory loss, migraines, and plantar fasciitis was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Facing 2.5T Individual Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- With respect to asbestos litigation, as of Dec. 31, 2010, about 2,500 individual cases and 146 class actions are pending that allege actual or potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or exposure to products allegedly sold by Graybar Electric Company, Inc. Additional claims will likely be filed against the Company in the future. Its insurance carriers have historically borne virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, the Company's future liability with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of its insurance carriers. Graybar Electric Company, Inc. distributes electrical, communications and data networking products, and provides related supply chain management and logistics services, primarily to electrical and comm/data contractors, industrial plants, federal, state and local governments, commercial users, telephone companies, and power utilities in North America. The Company is based in St. Louis, Mo. ********* 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 * * *