/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110617.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 17, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 119 Headlines APPLE INC: May Face Class Action in Korea Over iMac Stains BANNER SUPPLY: Agrees to Settle Drywall Class Action for US$55MM BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set for Oct. 5 CALPHALON CORP: Recalls 217,300 Cutlery Knife Sets CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Teacher Layoffs COMPUTER SCIENCES: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action CR ENGLAND: July 29 Class Action Hearing Set DURHAM REGION, CANADA: Aug. 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set GENERAL ELECTRIC: Recalls 90,600 Air Conditioning & Heating Units HARBINGER FITNESS: Recalls 4,169 Ab Straps Due to Fall Hazard HUFFINGTON POST: Jonathan Tasini Files Class Action K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Approves $300T Deal in "Robertson" Suit K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: "LeFaivre" Suit Returned to District Court K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Awaits Approval of "Crocker" Suit Settlement MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Signs MOUs to Settle Stockholder Suit NATIONAL GRID: Plaintiffs May Still Appeal Dismissal of Swap Suits NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES: Motley Rice Files Class Action PALL CORP: Cost of Consolidated Securities Suit Not Yet Estimable VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Texting "Scam" * Chinese Firms Face Class Actions Over Accounting Fraud Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: Huntington Ingalls Subject to Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Stanford's Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Court Issues Split Ruling in Morin Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Travelers Summary Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rentech Has $285,000 in Liabilities at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Posts $63.9MM A&E Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Still Has 485 Open Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Cleared in Chinea Case Last April 8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reserves $517.4MM at March 31 for A&E ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Reserves $81.7MM at March 31 for A&E ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Posts $1.3MM March 31 Cleanup Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,123 New Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic's Reserves at $142.6MM at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Has AO Respirator Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Still Has 260 Open Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Still Subject to Injury, Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms SeaRiver Summary Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Issues Split Ruling in Ensley Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Flips Ruling in Sussex County Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco's Long-Term March 31 Liability at $190MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. Ampco Rise to 8,668 at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Ampco From Howden Case in Progress ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Case v. 13 Insurance Firms in Pa. Ongoing ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS, Former Units Subject to Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Has 84 Personal Injury Cases at April 24 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Ongoing Against Regal Beloit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 21 Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Has Asbestos Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Party to Injury Suits in 4 States ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riley Action v. 45 Firms Filed in Jefferson Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nolen Case Against 137 Firms Filed on April 27 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comer's Lawsuit v. 143 Firms Filed on April 27 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barton Lawsuit v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tawney Lawsuit v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EA Calls for Help on Illegal Disposal Matters ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Todd Fined Over Breaches at Oswestry Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exeter Dockyard Worker's Death Linked to Hazard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio AG's Lawsuit v. Contractor Filed on June 7 ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Records Monitoring Results for Joplin Zone ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cambria Local Sentenced for Disposal Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peart Claim v. 35 Firms Filed on May 25 in Tex. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gipson Lawsuit v. 57 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkeley Pensioner's Death Related to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Men Charges for N.Y. Hazard Disposal Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Dorset Pensioners' Deaths Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Securities Fraud Case v. Halliburton Reinstated ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Dismissal of Bland's Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Colgate-Palmolive Bid in Tedrick Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Decision in Umbaugh's Claim ********* APPLE INC: May Face Class Action in Korea Over iMac Stains ---------------------------------------------------------- Kim Hyung-eun, writing for JoongAng Daily, reports that as much as Koreans adore Apple products, many of them are equally unhappy with the U.S. company's after-sales service policies. In the latest indication of such a sentiment, a group of 130 Koreans submitted a request to the Korea Consumer Agency for help with an Apple desktop computer, according to local media reports on June 14. The people say they have permanent stains on the display panel of their iMac computers and are threatening to sue if the problem is not resolved. Designed and built by Apple, iMac was first introduced in 1998 and has since been a key part of the U.S. company's desktop computer offerings. In April, a group of iPhone users in Korea filed a class action lawsuit against Apple and its Korean unit over their allegedly illegal collection of users' location data. If filed, the iMac case would be the first class action suit against the U.S. firm related to a product defect claim. The KCA notified Apple Korea of the allegation last month, and is now waiting for the company's response. "Because we are raising the issue on behalf of 130 people, we have asked Apple Korea to examine it in-depth," said an official with the agency. Apple Korea was not available for comment. The people are all members of After Apple, an online community for those who have experienced the stain problem with their iMac computers. The stain problem is not new. But until early this year, Apple Korea offered a free replacement, so consumers weren't as angry. Since February, however, the company has charged those who want a replacement KRW1.2 million (US$1,105), triggering a rise in complaints. An iMac computer sells for between KRW1.3 million and KRW2.3 million on local online retailers. The online community was launched because more and more people became frustrated with the policy change. In just a month, it attracted more than 220 members. According to members of the community, Apple says that the stain could be caused by factors like cigarette smoke, cooking or using an oil cooker, but they argue that they don't explain why some of the products at stores have the same problem. Members of the group suspect a flaw in the iMac's cooling system is to blame, causing the machine to overheat. They argue that the boot camp function, which allows both the Mac operating system and the Windows operating system to run simultaneously, could be causing the machines to overheat. They say that the problem constitutes a critical defect and they filed the complaint because boot camp is an Apple product. The members of After Apple say that if they find Apple's response to be inadequate, they will file a class action lawsuit. "It doesn't seem that Apple is taking this issue seriously at all. We are already preparing to file a class action lawsuit," said a member of the community. The iMac case is hardly the first in which Apple -- mostly its after-sales service department -- has upset consumers here who are used to the after-sales service provided by Korean manufacturers like Samsung and LG. In October 2010, a 13-year-old middle school student filed a civil lawsuit against Apple, seeking compensation after one of the company's repair shops denied her request to get her iPhone fixed under warranty. A similar suit was filed early this year. BANNER SUPPLY: Agrees to Settle Drywall Class Action for US$55MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rayanne Weiss, writing for WLOX News, reports that in a court filing in New Orleans on June 14 another Chinese Drywall supplier, Banner Supply out of Florida, has agreed to pay millions of dollars to settle that Chinese Drywall damaged homes and made them unlivable. Banner will pay US$55 million which is the extent of the companies Insurance Coverage. This settlement follows another multi million dollar agreement in April with Interior/Exterior Building Supply and two of its insurers. According to Ms. Weiss, Biloxi attorney Jim Reeves, the court appointed Class Counsel for the state and all others outside of Louisiana, says both companies distributed Knauf drywall in the region and he says that the class is going after the smaller companies and working their way up the food chain. BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set for Oct. 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing to approve, on a final basis, Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P.'s settlement of a consolidated securities class action litigation pending in Oklahoma, has been set for October 5, 2011, according to the Company's June 13, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") previously entered into a Stipulation of Settlement to settle the consolidated securities class action litigation, In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-MD-1989- GKF-FHM, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. On June 9, 2011, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving, subject to further consideration at a settlement hearing, the proposed settlement pursuant to the Stipulation involving, among other things, a dismissal of the Class Action Litigation with prejudice. The settlement hearing is currently scheduled for October 5, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. to determine whether the terms and conditions of the settlement provided for in the Stipulation are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the class and to consider whether to enter a final judgment approving the settlement in its entirety. CALPHALON CORP: Recalls 217,300 Cutlery Knife Sets -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Calphalon Corporation, of Atlanta, Georgia, announced a voluntary recall of about 217,000 units of Calphalon contemporary cutlery knife sets in the United States of America and 300 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The tips of the 8-inch slicing knife and/or the 8-inch bread knife can protrude through the bottom slot row on the wooden block holder, posing a laceration hazard. Calphalon has received one report of a cut finger injury. This recall involves all 17- and 21-piece Contemporary Cutlery Knife Sets with model numbers KNS17C and KNS21C. The knife sets were manufactured from August of 2007 through May 1, 2011. The recalled cutlery sets do not have model or date code markings on the wooden block although all sets have the "Calphalon" logo stamped in black on the front. Knife block sets with a three digit number imprinted on the underside are not included in this recall. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11246.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Macy's, Bed Bath and Beyond, Belk, Bloomingdales, Crate and Barrel, Dillard's, Kitchen Collection, Cutlery and More, Carlson Marketing, Maritz, Hinda, Calphalon Retail Outlets and stores nationwide; online by Amazon, Cooking.com; and in Chef's Catalog from 2007 through May 2011 for between $200 and $300. Consumers should immediately contact Calphalon to receive a free repair kit for the recalled products. To order a free repair kit, contact Calphalon anytime at (800) 766-5652. For additional information, contact Calphalon at (800) 809-7267 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.calphalon.com/ CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Teacher Layoffs -------------------------------------------------------------- WLS 890AM reports that a laid off Chicago Public Schools teacher filed a proposed class action lawsuit on June 14 against the city's Board of Education, claiming the firings violated recall laws. Williette Price claims the Board of Education of the City of Chicago fired her and about 200 other teachers in violation of recall rules required for such layoffs, according to a suit filed in Cook County Circuit Court. The suit claims that prior to June 2010, the board never discharged laid off teachers without continuing their salary for a limited period and continuing their employment for two years or more. Beginning in June 2010, the board laid off Price and the other teachers without providing all employment rights and privileges, according to the suit. The board described the discharges as "honorable" and "not for cause," the suit said. The suit claims Illinois law requires the defendants to have rules and procedures for both the layoff and recall of teachers before they may displace teachers for economic or administrative reasons. It claims the layoffs were in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Illinois Constitution. The suit claims the board has refused to put recall rules into place that would bring back the most qualified teachers when jobs become available. Instead, new teachers are being hired and experienced teachers who were laid off are not being given the chance to be rehired. The three-count suit is asking for the proposed class to be certified, award Price and the class money for all loss of income plus legal fees. CPS spokeswoman Becky Carroll declined to comment on pending litigation. The Chicago Teacher's Union filed a similar lawsuit in federal court about the firings and recall rules against the city's Board of Education in August 2010. Robin Potter, one of the attorney's in the lawsuit, was not immediately available to comment on the timing of the most recent lawsuit. A recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will allow the suit filed by the Chicago Teachers Union to be heard by the Illinois Supreme Court, which will rule on questions about the process in rehiring dismissed teachers. On June 13, CPS issued a statement on the Seventh Circuit Court's ruling. "Our efforts last year resulted in principals/administrators making offers to rehire more than 65 percent of displaced teachers to vacant positions within CPS. Depending on the number of teachers affected, CPS anticipates that it will hold two or more interview opportunities for any displaced teachers during July and August," the statement said. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. on June 14 disclosed that it has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Computer Sciences Corporation common stock during the period between August 11, 2010 and May 25, 2011. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 2, 2011. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-5164, toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws against Computer Sciences and its officers and directors for issuing materially false and misleading financial statements to investors regarding the company's business and financial conditions. On February 1, 2011, Computer Sciences announced that the SEC had initiated a formal investigation into accounting irregularities at the Company. On May 25, 2011, in connection with its announcement of financial results, which missed Wall Street consensus estimates, the Company disclosed that its Audit Committee had begun an internal investigation into accounting irregularities in one of its service sectors. The Company's shares declined 12% in response to this announcement. The firm is also investigating actions on behalf of shareholders for the following companies: Community Health Systems, Inc., Logitech International SA, Longtop Financial Technologies Limited, Research in Motion Limited, WMS Industries Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and Yongye International, Inc. If you purchased securities of any of the above companies and wish learn more about any of these actions or have any questions, please contact: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C., Pittsburgh Toll-Free: 800-391-5164 Telephone: 412-391-5164 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com CR ENGLAND: July 29 Class Action Hearing Set -------------------------------------------- Sandi Soendker, managing editor for Land Line, reports that the class action lawsuit of OOIDA v. C.R. England has been in the news since it was first filed in 2002. The truth-in-leasing case went to trial in 2006, and the landmark win was awarded to the truckers. But figuring out how much is owed to the class members has been complicated and lengthy. That process moved closer to resolution recently with two significant orders from the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City. A series of hearings have been held before Magistrate Judge David Nuffer in an effort to move forward with the accounting and specifically the adjudication of C.R. England's setoffs against individual class members. The recent orders are good news for truckers, said David A. Cohen, Esq. -- dac@cullenlaw.com -- attorney for The Cullen Law Firm, OOIDA's litigation counsel. The first order, issued on May 19, dealt with three specific setoffs that CRE sought to assert against individual class members. In two of those, the judge ruled in favor of the truckers. The first issue was whether CRE could set off obligations owed by the class member for truck lease payments after the termination of the independent contractor operating agreement -- called the "ICOA" -- against escrow funds. In many cases, when the driver turned the truck, it sat on the lot in Salt Lake City for months before it was released to another lessee. Given that truck lease payments ranged between $550 and $625 per week, the total amount allegedly owed routinely exceeded $5,000. In some cases, the amount purportedly owed exceeded $10,000. The court excluded these setoffs on the ground that the obligation for post-ICOA truck lease payments originated in the vehicle lease agreement, and any obligation for such payments was owed to Opportunity Leasing and not C.R. England. CRE does not lease trucks. That's done through Opportunity Leasing, a private company. The second issue also involved truck lease payments. Here, the issue concerned the common practice where a class member signed a document which stated that the driver would be given four weeks of "deferred" truck lease payments. The document stated, however, that the driver would be responsible for those deferred lease payments if he or she failed to complete the lease. CRE is seeking to assert these claims against drivers in the accounting. "We argued that the court should exclude these setoffs because the obligation to repay the 'deferred' lease payments was to Opportunity Leasing," said Mr. Cohen. Judge Nuffer disagreed and held that because the operating agreement allows CRE to deduct truck lease payments during the term of the ICOA, these setoffs should be allowed. The third issue was whether C.R. England could assert setoffs for "truck recovery," which is the costs of recovering trucks supposedly abandoned by drivers. These costs included amounts for airfare to fly a driver to the location of the abandonment, motel charges, fuel charges, etc. However, CRE has lost or destroyed all of the backup documents -- i.e., receipts and spreadsheets that would have substantiated these alleged costs. "More importantly, we were able to establish that England lost or destroyed these documents after this suit was filed in June 2002," said Mr. Cohen. "Under the doctrine of 'spoliation,' a party may be sanctioned if it destroys relevant documents after suit is commenced. We argued that the court should sanction England by entering judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against England on these truck recovery claims." Mr. Cohen reported that the court did not need to reach the "spoliation" issue because it dismissed the truck recovery setoffs on the ground that they were obligations owed by the class member to Opportunity Leasing under the vehicle lease agreement, and not a debt owed to CRE. "In sum, we won two out of the three issues before the court in the first order," said Mr. Cohen. "Also, the single biggest setoff in dollar terms -- the post-ICOA truck lease payments -- was excluded. By excluding post-ICOA truck lease payments, and truck recovery costs, we have taken two valuable setoffs off the table." Mr. Cohen said the effect will be that hundreds of class members will be able to prove "actual damages" and restitution under the court's prior rulings and will be entitled to "reasonable interest," which, depending on the language of the contract, may be 18 percent interest per year. A second order was issued by the court on June 1. Mr. Cohen said the issue here was whether CRE could assert setoffs against class members in situations where the driver was unable to pay for a repair and C.R. England issued a Comcheck to the repair facility to pay for it. C.R. England then deducted money each week from the driver's settlement statement for the repair costs. CRE argued that it should be able to assert setoffs against class member's escrow funds because U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart specifically allowed defendant to assert setoffs for "advances" made to owner-operators. The company argued that it advanced funds to the driver for repairs and should be allowed to satisfy that obligation from escrow funds. The magistrate judge, however, disagreed. The court looked beyond the mere fact that C.R. England advanced funds to drivers. Rather, the judge was more interested in what entity actually advanced the funds to the owner-operator. Here, OOIDA was able to prove that advances for truck repairs were, in reality, advances from Opportunity Leasing. As a result, the court excluded these setoffs on the ground that they were not CRE's advances. Mr. Cohen explained that this ruling is potentially significant because the court went beyond the corporate formalities to determine what corporate entity, C.R. England or Opportunity Leasing, actually advanced funds to drivers. And that ruling may indicate which way the judge will rule on other purported advances CRE wants excluded. OOIDA's goal is to have all setoffs adjudicated by the fall. Once the setoffs are disposed of, OOIDA will ask that judgment be entered in favor of individual class members for the unreturned escrow amounts plus any interest that is due to the driver. Given the fact that the majority of class members signed a lease containing an 18 percent interest clause, the damages/restitution awarded is expected to be substantial. Class members: Who's who? The court's ruling regarding the appropriate interest rate is not applicable to all class members or all class claims. The class certified by the court, which numbered almost 6,000 persons, included all owner-operators leased to C.R. England from June 1998 through the end of 2005. After trial, the court held that the lease agreement C.R. England implemented in the summer of 2002 (after OOIDA filed suit) was completely compliant with the federal regulations. (OOIDA disputes this ruling, and it is subject to a later appeal). Leases entered into between 1998 and 2002 were deemed noncompliant by the judge. The court ordered an equitable accounting of all class members' escrow funds for class members who entered these leases. Approximately 1,800 class members have positive escrow balances and they are the ones who contested setoffs asserted by England as part of the accounting process. Of these 1,800 class members, only those who entered lease agreements containing the default provision noted by the court will be entitled to 18 percent interest on unlawfully retained escrow funds. Mr. Cohen said this is around 1,000 class members. Class members who had this clause will be entitled to interest compounded at a rate of 1.5 percent per month after lease termination for unreturned escrow funds. He said the other 800 class members who did not have the default clause (those leasing on in 1998 and 1999) will be entitled to interest at the 91-day Treasury bill rate. What's next? A hearing is scheduled for July 29. At that time the parties will present their argument to the court regarding issues relating to more than 400 class members who leased on to England under the original independent contractor operating agreement, but subsequently signed the revised ICOA in the summer of 2002. England claims that these drivers are not entitled to any monetary recovery because they terminated their relationship with the motor carrier under the revised contract. OOIDA disagrees, as there is nothing in either the contracts or the regulations that would allow CRE to take escrows accumulated under the first contract and lump them together with escrows earned under the second contract. OOIDA will ask the court to order CRE to return the balance of the driver's escrow funds at the time the original lease was terminated. DURHAM REGION, CANADA: Aug. 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Gilligan, writing for durhamregion.com, reports that a lawyer representing claimants in a lawsuit against Durham Region won't comment on the law firm of Jim Flaherty and Christine Elliott being involved. Sean Brown said, "I can't answer that. Leave it at that." The Whitby firm of Flaherty Dow Elliott and McCarthy are representing plaintiffs in a C$40-million class action lawsuit against the Region over the loss of a USB key containing information on 84,000 people who received an H1N1 flu shot in 2009. Justice Peter Lauwers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the suit in late April and Bowmanville resident John Sherlock Rowlands was appointed as the 'representative' of the class. Mr. Brown wouldn't say if Mr. Rowlands contacted the firm or if the firm contacted him. "I can't get into that. Attorney, client privilege," Mr. Brown said in an interview. The suit claims the Region was negligent, breached a fiduciary duty, violated people's privacy and breached the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. None of the claims have been proven in court. The USB key was lost in the parking lot of the Regional headquarters by a public health nurse in December of 2009. On the key was information on the 83,524 people who had been vaccinated between Oct. 23 and Dec. 15, 2009 at flu vaccination clinics provided by the Regional health department. Information collected includes the person's name, address, phone number, date of birth, health card number, name of their primary physician, and personal health information provided when they got the vaccination. "As a consequence of the various causes of action, the Plaintiffs have suffered special damages, meaning money damages for the purpose of obtaining credit monitoring for a period of years by the court. Further, the Plaintiffs may be entitled to punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages," the plaintiffs state in their court filing. Mr. Brown said the C$40 million total was chosen based on a "defendant's submission, that was the limit of their insurance." From a litigation standpoint, the exchange of documents and discovery are the next steps, which will happen in September. "We hope 2012" for when the matter would be dealt with in court, he stated. "Certainly won't be by the end of this year. Subject to court availability, 2012, early 2012." Under class action rules, people who don't want to take part have to opt out. If they don't, they're automatically involved. The period to opt out runs to 5:00 p.m. on Aug. 31. "Claim members may opt out if they wish," Mr. Brown said, adding he wouldn't speculate on why someone would opt out of the suit. "This law firm isn't receiving the notices," he noted. Opt out notices are sent to Deloitte and Touche, the firm appointed by the courts to act as administrator of the suit. "I don't know what the options might be. Everyone has a choice." The Region is being represented by the Toronto firm of David Boghosian and Associates. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Recalls 90,600 Air Conditioning & Heating Units ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with distributor, GE Appliances and Lighting, of Louisville, Kentucky, and manufacturer, Sharp Corp., of Osaka, Japan, announced a voluntary recall of about 90,600 GE Zoneline air conditioners and heaters. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. An electrical component in the heating system can fail, posing a fire hazard to consumers. General Electric and Sharp have received four reports of incidents involving smoke and/or fire with the air conditioning and heating units. In two of the reported incidents, fire extended beyond the air conditioning and heating unit, resulting in property damage. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves GE Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTAC) and packaged terminal heat pumps manufactured between January 2010 and March 2011, and are most often used in apartment buildings and commercial space. The GE logo is affixed to the control panel door. Serial and model are printed on the rating plate. Consumers will need to remove the front panel to locate the model and serial information. These models and serials are included in this recall: Model Number Serial Number Brand (Begins with) (Begins with) ----- ------------- ------------- GE AZ41, AZ61 AT, DT, FT, GT HT, LT, MT, RT ST, TT, VT, ZT AV, DV and FV Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11247.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by General Electric authorized representatives and HVAC distributors nationwide from March 2010 through March 2011 for between $1,000 and $1,200. Consumers should immediately stop using the air conditioning and heating units in the heat mode and contact General Electric to schedule a free repair. For additional information, contact General Electric toll-free at (866) 918-8771 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.geappliances.com/products/recall/ HARBINGER FITNESS: Recalls 4,169 Ab Straps Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Harbinger Fitness, of Fairfield, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 4,169 Ab Straps exercise equipment. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The plastic buckle on the ab straps can break, posing a fall hazard to consumers. There were two reported incidents of straps breaking. Both incidents resulted in lacerations to consumers' heads and necks. The recalled product is a set of Harbinger Ab Straps, style 371100 that are hung from an overhead structure. The product consists of two 17.5 inch long straps made of black nylon webbing with padded nylon arm slings and plastic buckles. Users place their arms in the slings to lift themselves to do abdominal exercises. The word "Harbinger" appears on the outer side of one ab strap. Universal Product Code (UPC) 000751510964 is on the bottom flap of the packaging of the affected ab straps. The style number does not appear on the product or the product's packaging. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11245.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online at Bodybuilding.com and Amazon.com, and at Second Wind Fitness, Play It Again Sports, Advantis Nutrition, and other general sporting goods and fitness specialty stores nationwide from August 2006 to April 2011 for about $20. Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact Harbinger for a free replacement. For additional information, please contact Harbinger customer service at (800) 729-5954 from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to noon Pacific Time on Friday, visit the firm's Web site at http://www.harbingerfitness.com/or e-mail the firm at custserv@harbingerfitness.com HUFFINGTON POST: Jonathan Tasini Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Matthew Rocco, writing for International Business Times, reports that journalist and labor organizer Jonathan Tasini filed a $105 million class action lawsuit against The Huffington Post, a Web site founded by Arianna Huffington for which Mr. Tasini wrote. Now four new plaintiffs have been added to the growing class action lawsuit that claims The Huffington Post's writers deserve to be paid. Filmmaker Molly Secours, public relations professional Richard Laermer, journalist Billy Altman and writer Tara Dublin have been added to the class action suit, according to Forbes. Mr. Tasini wrote for the Web site as a blogger from December 2005 until February of this year. He says he ceased blogging for The Huffington Post when it was purchased by AOL. He also led and won a lawsuit against New York Times Co. Mr. Tasini was fighting against newspapers' right to license digital versions of contributions from freelancers. According to a letter published anonymously by the Business Insider, combined Internet traffic to The Huffington Post and AOL has fallen. But according to data from comScore, which measures web traffic to news Web sites, The Huffington Post posted 35.6 million unique visitors in May compared to The New York Times' 33.6 million unique visitors. Huffington's increase in visitors is due in large part because AOL is driving traffic to the news Web site. K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Approves $300T Deal in "Robertson" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama approved an agreement settling for $300,000 a class action lawsuit against K-V Pharmaceutical Company's subsidiary, Ther-Rx Corporation, according to the Company's June 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. Robertson v. Ther-Rx Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Civil Case No. 2:09-cv-01010-MHT-TFM, was filed October 30, 2009, by a Ther-Rx sales representative asserting non-exempt status and the right to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for a class of Ther-Rx sales representatives and under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (with respect to plaintiff's pregnancy) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (also with respect to termination allegedly due to her pregnancy and to her complaints about being terminated allegedly as a result of her pregnancy). An additional seven Ther-Rx sales representatives have joined as plaintiffs. Class certification arguments are pending before the court. On December 22, 2010, a settlement in principle was reached between the parties for $0.3 million and on May 12, 2011, the court approved the settlement agreement. K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: "LeFaivre" Suit Returned to District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- An appellate court returned to the district court a class action lawsuit captioned LeFaivre v. K-V Pharmaceutical Company, et al., for further proceedings, according to the Company's June 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. The Company and its subsidiary, ETHEX Corporation, are named defendants in at least 39 pending product liability or other lawsuits that relate to the voluntary product recalls initiated by the Company in late 2008 and early 2009. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege damages as a result of the ingestion of purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed in 2007 and 2008. The lawsuits are pending in federal and state courts in various jurisdictions. The 39 pending lawsuits include nine that have settled but have not yet been dismissed. In the 39 pending lawsuits, two plaintiffs allege economic harm, 27 plaintiffs allege that a death occurred, and the plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits allege non-fatal physical injuries. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability are based on various theories of recovery, including, but not limited to strict liability, negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding, fraud and other common law and/or statutory claims. Plaintiffs seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Two of the lawsuits are putative class actions seeking economic damages with respect to recalled products, one of the lawsuits is on behalf of 29 claimants, and the remaining lawsuits are individual lawsuits or have two plaintiffs. One of these putative class actions, styled LeFaivre v. KV Pharmaceutical Company et al., seeks economic damages with respect to recalled metoprolol succinate product. During January 2011, the decision of the U.S. District Court dismissing the case in favor of the Company was reversed on appeal. The Company requested reconsideration by the appellate court, which was denied in March 2011, and the Company has filed a motion for appellate review en banc, which was denied by the court on May 12, 2011. The case has been returned to the district court for further proceedings. The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against them, except where, in its judgment, settlement is appropriate. In addition to the 39 pending lawsuits, there are at least 31 pending pre-litigation claims (at least six of which involve a death) that may or may not eventually become lawsuits. The Company has also resolved a significant number of related product liability lawsuits and pre-litigation claims. In addition to self insurance, the Company possesses third party product liability insurance, which the Company believes is applicable to the pending lawsuits and claims. K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Awaits Approval of "Crocker" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- K-V Pharmaceutical Company is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit for alleged breach of fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's 401(k) plan, according to K-V Pharmaceutical's June 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. On February 3, 2009, plaintiff Harold Crocker filed a putative class-action complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Crocker v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4-09-cv-198-CEJ. The Crocker case was followed shortly thereafter by two similar cases, also in the Eastern District of Missouri (Bodnar v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4:09-cv-00222-HEA, on February 9, 2009, and Knoll v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4:09-cv-00297-JCH, on February 24, 2009). The two later cases were consolidated into Crocker so that only a single action existed thereafter, and the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 26, 2009. The Complaint purported to state claims against the Company and certain current and former employees for alleged breach of fiduciary duties to participants in the Company?s 401(k) plan. Defendants, including the Company and certain of its directors and officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 25, 2009, and briefing of those motions was completed on October 19, 2009. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Company and all individual defendants on March 24, 2010. A motion to alter or amend the judgment and second amended consolidated complaint was filed on April 21, 2010. The Company, on May 17, 2010, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the consolidated complaint. On October 20, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs requested mediation and the Company agreed to this request. On February 15, 2011, during such mediation, this litigation was settled by an agreement in principle of the parties for an amount equal to $3.0, payable in full from the Company's insurance coverage. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Signs MOUs to Settle Stockholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation entered into memoranda of understanding to settle a consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit and two stockholder derivative lawsuits pending in Arizona, according to the Company's June 13, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 6, 2011, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, certain of its current officers and directors who are named in the actions, and the Company's outside auditors entered into Memoranda of Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated stockholder class action litigation pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, as well as both stockholder derivative lawsuits pending in Superior Court of the State of Arizona. Under the terms of these settlement agreements, which remain subject to approval by the applicable courts among other customary conditions, the Company's portion of the Class Action Litigation settlement will be paid entirely by insurance. The Company's outside auditors also will contribute to this settlement. The Derivative Lawsuits settlement, the only financial component of which involves payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, also will be paid entirely by insurance. The Company itself is not required to make any payments to fund the settlements of the Class Action Litigation or the Derivative Lawsuits. The settlement of the Derivative Lawsuits reflects certain control and other enhancements undertaken by the Company in connection with and subsequent to the restatement of its consolidated financial statements in 2008. The settlement agreements contain no admission of liability by the Company or the named individuals in the respective actions, the allegations of which are expressly denied in the MOUs. NATIONAL GRID: Plaintiffs May Still Appeal Dismissal of Swap Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ National Grid plc disclosed in its June 13, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31 2011, that plaintiffs may still take an appeal from the dismissal of a federal class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary, KeySpan Corporation. Two putative class actions were commenced against KeySpan Corporation and Morgan Stanley, one in a New York state court and one in the federal court. The claims are based on allegations that the financial swap transaction between KeySpan and Morgan Stanley dated 18 January 2006 caused customers of Consolidated Edison, Inc. to overpay for electricity between May 2006 and February 2008. The Company believes that both complaints and their allegations are without merit and it has applied to have both actions dismissed. The Company's application for dismissal in the federal court was granted on 22 March 2011 but the plaintiffs may still appeal. NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES: Motley Rice Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the architect of the lead paint lawsuit filed by the state of Rhode Island has filed a class action over a Nuclear Fuel Services materials processing facility in Tennessee. Fidelma Fitzpatrick announced that her firm, Motley Rice, filed the lawsuit on June 13 against NFS and a handful of other defendants in a Tennessee federal court, alleging exposure to radioactive substances released into the environment. "We have seen in previous environmental contamination cases the devastating impact that potentially negligent environmental practices can have on a community, and our hope is that Erwin residents will now have their day in court as well as initiate changes in the safety culture at NFS," Ms. Fitzpatrick said. Ms. Fitzpatrick had the idea to use a public nuisance claim in lawsuits brought against the paint industry by former Rhode Island attorneys general Sheldon Whitehouse and Patrick Lynch. The public nuisance claim allowed them to avoid certain defenses available in a products liability claim, like the tolled statute of limitations. Ultimately, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled for the companies. The class in the Tennessee case is any person who lived or worked in the Erwin area since 1957 and experienced property damage or was diagnosed with severe or fatal illnesses. The defendants in the lawsuit are W.R. Grace & Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to Davis Chemical Company and NFS; Chevron, individually and as successor-in- interest to Texaco, Getty Oil and Skelly Oil; NFS Holdings; Nog- Erwin Holdings; Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group; B&W Nuclear Environmental Services; and NFS. The lawsuit seeks compensation for medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, funeral-related expenses, emotional distress, damage to property and attorneys fees. It also seeks punitive damages. Other counsel working with Motley Rice are the firms Rogers, Laughlin, Nunnally, Hood & Crum and Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates. Motley Rice was the subject of a recent motion in a Tennessee asbestos case that asks a judge to prohibit the firm and its litigation partner from communicating with potential witnesses. A group of companies say letters sent to potential witnesses asking them not to speak with defense counsel was tantamount to witness-tampering. The chairman of the Tennessee Bar Association's ethics committee agreed. PALL CORP: Cost of Consolidated Securities Suit Not Yet Estimable ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pall Corporation, in its June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011, reported that no liabilities or related receivables for insurance recoveries have been reflected in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements with respect a consolidated securities class action lawsuit as the amounts relating to the litigation are not currently estimable. As previously reported in the Company's Form 10-K filing with the SEC for the year ended July 31, 2010, four putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain members of its management team alleging violations of the federal securities laws relating to the Company's understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior periods, audit committee inquiry and restatement to the consolidated financial statements included in the 2007 Form 10-K. These lawsuits were filed between August 14, 2007, and October 11, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. By Order dated May 28, 2008, the Court consolidated the cases under the caption "In re Pall Corp," No. 07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ARL), appointed a lead plaintiff and ordered that the lead plaintiff file a consolidated amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on August 4, 2008. The lead plaintiff seeks to act as representative for a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock between April 20, 2007, and August 2, 2007, inclusive. The consolidated amended complaint names the Company and its current chief executive officer and chief financial officer as defendants and alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It alleges that the defendants violated these provisions of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading public statements about the Company's financial results and financial statements, including the Company's income tax liability, effective tax rate, internal controls and accounting practices. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 19, 2008, and filed its reply brief to the lead plaintiff's opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on December 2, 2008. By Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2009, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint by filing a second amended complaint. On October 9, 2009, the Company moved for certification for interlocutory appeal, and the Court denied the motion by Memorandum and Order entered November 25, 2009. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Texting "Scam" -------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Moreno, writing for KCBY CBS 11, reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed against Verizon. Ever get a random text message, one you didn't ask for and don't want? In some cases, it could cost you, just like it cost Hong Huang. "I was just pretty frustrated," he said. "I was upset because it's just not fair, and I didn't subscribe to it." Mr. Huang is a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed last week by Seattle attorney Toby Marshall. "We think there are thousands of people in Washington that have been charged deceptively," the attorney said. Mr. Huang says he had no idea he'd signed up, and isn't sure how it happened. But he has nine months of bills to show for it. "I believe it is an outright scam," he said. Billing practices convinced Verizon and the state of Texas to take legal action against the Arizona company. Mr. Marshall says the company charged millions of dollars in texting fees that Washington residents never knew they approved. It's a practice commonly known as cramming. "When you get the text, if you don't opt out of it -- basically if you don't respond back and say stop or something like that -- they assume that you are now enrolled," he said. Company officials recently issued a statement, saying they are disappointed and distressed. They strongly denied the allegations. The company did not return KOMO News' calls. Marshall says because the fees can be easy to overlook, he expects thousands of people in Washington to be in the same situation as Mr. Huang. "He never asked for it. He never authorized it. He didn't even know that he was getting it. And yet he was being charged $9.99 per month for that service," Mr. Marshall said. "I just hope that a lot of people can really get their money back," said Mr. Huang. Consumers can check for these charges by looking at the data charges section of cell phone bills. Verizon is offering a refund to customers who incurred such charges. * Chinese Firms Face Class Actions Over Accounting Fraud -------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Rapoza, writing for Forbes, reports that a slew of small and mid-cap Chinese companies traded in New York are getting served class-action lawsuits for accounting fraud, but that's not enough to scare true believers away from the overall market. "The accounting issue is really with a very small and not particularly relevant subset of reverse takeovers that occurred in the States by Chinese companies," says David Semple, director of international equity of Van Eck Global in New York. A lot of the companies being investigated for fraud entered the US market through reverse mergers, sidestepping the requirement to list first through an initial public offering. IPOs require detailed financial statements and listing companies must abide by US accounting standards before being allowed on Wall Street. Long-time China investors seem aware of the risks, and the inherent accounting fraud in corporate China. "There are long term economic issues that China needs to address -- as does Europe, the US and Japan -- and no one believes that China can grow as fast as previously, but to listen to the naysayers that China will have some kind of crisis because of these cases would be pretty misguided," Mr. Semple says. According to securities litigators, Motley Rice, 11 out of a list of 27 new securities and consumer fraud cases are against Chinese companies. The rest are against US companies. Some of the companies listed are actively traded names like Sino Clean Energy, which trades around one million shares daily, more than China oil companies PetroChina and CNOOC Limited combined. "You have to be skeptical of Chinese accounting standards," says Paul Dietrich, chairman of Foxhall Capital Management in Alexandria. The company recently sold out of its position in the iShares FTSE Xinhua China 25 exchange traded fund, a large cap fund made up primarily of financial services and basic materials. "I don't think these scandals hurt FXI in the mid-term or even in the larger scheme of things. So much of this off-balance sheet money is normal practice and they haven't yet realized that that's not how we do it over here," Mr. Dietrich says. "The fraud tends to be from companies with elite Chinese involvement that survive on local capital and provincial subsidies." Mr. Dietrich said that some venture capital firms in the US, with Chinese partners, are taking over Chinese firms whose stock has been distressed because of class action lawsuits against them. The idea is to delist them, take over, put in new management, clean the financial books and then re-list in Hong Kong, where accounting standards are less rigorous. Not all of the cases will go to court. One insider at a New York law firm working for plaintiffs suing China Green Agriculture, a $116 million biotechnology company, says Green Agriculture replied to the suit with a long rebuttal. The case will likely get dismissed by a judge. Since June 1, the iShares FTSE Xinhua China ETF is down 4.95%, underperforming the MSCI Emerging Markets index and the MSCI EAFE, both down around 2.9%. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS ALERT: Huntington Ingalls Subject to Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. and its predecessors in interest are defendants in a long-standing series of cases filed in numerous jurisdictions around the country wherein former and current employees and various third party persons allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with Company premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by the Company. The cases allege various injuries including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, in addition to the Company, several of its former executive officers are also named defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. COMPANY PROFILE: Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. 4101 Washington Avenue Newport News, Va. 23607 Website: www.huntingtoningalls.com Phone Number: (757) 380-2000 Description: The Company, on March 29, 2011, entered into a Separation and Distribution Agreement with its former parent company, Northrop Grumman Corporation, and Northrop Grumman's subsidiaries, under which the Company was legally and structurally separated from Northrop Grumman. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Stanford's Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the June 23, 2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Thomas Q. Stanford entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation, asbestos, mustard gas, and herbicides. The case is styled Thomas Q. Stanford, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Holdaway entered judgment in Case No. 09-3030 on March 9, 2011. Mr. Stanford, a self-represented appellant, served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from September 1952 to October 1973, including service in Vietnam. His service medical records (SMRs) reflected normal blood pressure readings throughout service, and during his June 1973 retirement examination. The post-service medical records showed that Mr. Stanford was first diagnosed with gingival cancer in 1993. He underwent treatment, including excision of the carcinoma in situ in 1994. In a June 2004 statement, Mr. Stanford's oral surgeon, Dr. Ted Rosner, noted that he had seen the appellant since September 1996 for follow up to carcinoma on the left posterior tonsillar area. Dr. Rosner reported that his original physical examination of Mr. Stanford revealed two small areas of skin with graft and that "[t]he tissue appeared healthy with no evidence of recurrence." In August 2004, the RO denied Mr. Stanford's claim for service connection for hypertension. The RO also determined that Mr. Stanford had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim for service connection for gingival cancer, and Mr. Stanford perfected an appeal. In November 2007, Mr. Stanford testified at a hearing before the RO. He stated that he was first diagnosed with hypertension in service in 1973 and had taken medication for hypertension since that time. He also testified that he was exposed to Agent Orange and other defoliants in service, was exposed to radiation and asbestos at Maguire Air Force Base in New Jersey, and was exposed to radiation while stationed in Japan from 1951 to 1953. Mr. Stanford further testified that he believed his exposure to such toxins contributed to his hypertension and oral cancer. On June 23, 2009, the Board issued its decision here on appeal. This appeal followed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Court Issues Split Ruling in Morin Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex, issued split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Kathleen A. Morin, administratrix v. AutoZone Northeast, Inc., & others. Judges Duffly, Sikora, and Milkey entered judgment in Case No. 09-P-1816 on March 14, 2011. Estate filed asbestos exposure action, alleging that operator of produce supply company had contracted mesothelioma as result of inhaling asbestos fibers that defendants manufactured or sold. The Superior Court Department, Judge Charles J. Hely, granted summary judgment to 12 defendants. Estate appealed from grant of summary judgment to three defendants. This Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Geraldina Medeiros and her husband, Anthony Medeiros owned and operated Bedford Fruit Company, a fresh produce supplier located in Hyannis. They acquired Bedford Fruit in 1952 and ran the company until it ceased business in 1991. They took an active role in day-to-day operations throughout their proprietorship. In May 2005, almost 15 years after Bedford Fruit had closed its doors, Geraldina died as a result of malignant mesothelioma. The plaintiff in this case, Kathleen Morin, is the daughter of Geraldina and the administratrix of her estate. In December, 2005, Morin began a wrongful death action on behalf of the estate. She named 40 defendants, mainly automobile parts manufacturers and retailers. She alleged that her mother contracted mesothelioma because she had inhaled asbestos fibers as she worked at Bedford Fruit. Morin asserted that the asbestos fibers came from automobile parts which the defendants manufactured or sold, and claimed that each of the defendants was liable for breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability and for common-law negligence. Some of the defendants promptly settled with Morin, and some moved for summary judgment. In an order dated Nov. 3, 2008, a judge of the Superior Court allowed the summary judgment motions of 12 defendants and denied the summary judgment motions of three defendants. After settling with the remaining defendants, Morin appealed from the grant of summary judgment to three defendants: AutoZone Northeast, Inc.; Great Dane Trailers, Inc.; and Orleans Auto Supply, Inc. On appeal, Morin argued that she presented evidence from which a jury could find that asbestos fibers from those defendants' products contributed to the cause of Geraldina's death. As to the claims against AutoZone and Orleans, this Court agreed with Morin and therefore reversed so much of the judgment as dismisses the claims against those defendants. As to Great Dane, this Court concluded that the judge properly allowed its motion for summary judgment. Shaun B. Spencer, Esq., represented Morin. Robert L. Boston, Esq., represented AutoZone Northeast, Inc. Andre A. Sansoucy, Esq., represented Orleans Auto Supply, Inc. Susan E. Stenger, Esq., represented CRA Trailers, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Travelers Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which granted summary judgment in favor of the Travelers Companies. The case is styled Ford Bacon & Davis, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Travelers Insurance Co.; Travelers Casualty & Surety Co; Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, Defendants- Appellees. Circuit Judges Barksdale, Clement, and Prado entered judgment in Case No. 10-20319 on March 14, 2011. Ford, Bacon & Davis, LLC -- FBD LLC -- appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants. FBD LLC argued that Travelers had a duty to defend it against asbestos- related lawsuits arising from its purchase of assets of another company, Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc. -- FBD Inc. -- for whom Travelers provided insurance coverage. In 1996, S & B Acquisition LLP purchased certain assets of the entity then known as Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc. As part of the Agreement, S & B acquired rights to the name "Ford, Bacon & Davis" and became Ford, Bacon & Davis, LLC. The remaining entity of FBD Inc. changed its name to SFB Companies, Inc. Faced with more asbestos-related suits arising from pre-sale assets and lacking SFB to identify itself as the proper party or to provide indemnity, FBD LLC called upon Travelers to provide it a defense. FBD LLC claimed that it was the successor entity to FBD Inc., and thus Travelers' coverage of FBD Inc.'s pre-transfer liabilities should transfer to it under operation of law. After Travelers denied FBD LLC's demand for defense, FBD LLC brought suit against Travelers in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. FBD LLC sought a declaratory judgment that Travelers has a duty to defend it against the asbestos- related lawsuits, as well as reimbursement for costs spent defending those lawsuits. Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it owed no right of defense to FBD LLC. The district court granted summary judgment on April 7, 2010, and FBD LLC timely filed this appeal. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rentech Has $285,000 in Liabilities at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rentech, Inc.'s asbestos liability was US$285,000 at March 31, 2011, and its accretion expense for the six months ended March 31, 2011, was US$17,000. The Company's asbestos liability was US$277,000 at Dec. 31, 2010 and its accretion expense was US$9,000 for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 25, 2011) The Company has a legal obligation to handle and dispose of asbestos at its plant at East Dubuque, Ill., and at the site of its proposed project near Natchez, Miss., in a special manner when conducting major or minor renovations or when buildings at these locations are demolished, even though the timing and method of the handling and disposal of asbestos are conditional on future events that may or may not be in its control. As a result, the Company has a conditional obligation for this disposal. In addition, the Company, through its normal repair and maintenance program, may encounter situations in which it is required to remove asbestos in order to complete other work. The Company applied the expected present value technique to calculate and record the fair value of the asset retirement obligation for each property. In accordance with the applicable guidance, the liability is increased over time and such increase is recorded as accretion expense. The conditional asset -- asbestos removal -- related to property, plant and equipment consisted of US$210,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010. The conditional asset -- asbestos removal -- related to construction in progress consisted of US$27,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010. Rentech, Inc. provides clean energy solutions. The Company also owns and operates a nitrogen fertilizer plant in East Dubuque, Ill., which manufacturers and sells natural gas-based nitrogen fertilizer products within the corn-belt region in the United States. The Company is based in Los Angeles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Posts $63.9MM A&E Reserves at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. recorded asbestos and environmental reserves of US$63.9 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$68.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2011. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s primary business operations include insurance products and services provided through three property and casualty operating segments. These segments are Commercial Lines, Personal Lines, and Other Property and Casualty. The Company is headquartered in Worcester, Mass. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Still Has 485 Open 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 upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging 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. To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any payment by BGE or the Company and a small minority of these cases have been resolved for amounts that were not material to the Company's financial results. Discovery begins in these cases once they are placed on the trial docket. At present, a small number of the Company's pending cases have reached the trial docket. Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the 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: Ballantyne Cleared in Chinea Case Last April 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ballantyne Strong, Inc., on April 8, 2011, was formally dismissed from an asbestos case styled 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 in the Superior Court of the State of New York. Ballantyne Strong, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, services and distributes theatre and lighting systems. The Company's products are distributed to movie exhibition companies, sports arenas, auditoriums, amusement parks and special venues. The Company is headquartered in Omaha, Neb. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reserves $517.4MM at March 31 for A&E -------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s net reserves for asbestos and environmental exposures amounted to US$517.4 million during the three months ended March 31, 2011, compared with US$600.2 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010. The Company's gross reserves for A&E exposures amounted to US$535.8 million during the three months ended March 31, 2011, compared with US$625.2 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010. At March 31, 2011, the gross reserves for A&E losses were comprised of US$132.5 million representing case reserves reported by ceding companies, US$113.7 million representing additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance claims, US$37.3 million representing case reserves established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley, and US$252.3 million representing IBNR (incurred but not reported) reserves. With respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2011, the Company had gross asbestos loss reserves of US$512.7 million, or 95.7%, of total A&E reserves, of which US$409.6 million was for assumed business and US$103.1 million was for direct 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 headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Reserves $81.7MM at March 31 for A&E ---------------------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings, Inc.'s net loss reserves for asbestos and environmental claims amounted to US$81.7 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$83.9 million as of March 31, 2010. The Company's gross loss reserve for A&E claims amounted to US$89.3 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$113.3 million as of March 31, 2010. On May 9, 2011, the Company settled an outstanding reinsurance recoverable balance related to certain asbestos claims in the Company's Run-off Lines segment. Proceeds from the settlement amounted to US$16.8 million. As a result of this settlement, the Company has recorded an expense of US$1.9 million to write-off the unreserved portion of this reinsurance recoverable balance that is uncollectible and a charge of US$2 million to loss and loss adjustment expense, or a total of US$3.9 million of expenses before tax (US$2.5 million net of taxes) for the three months ended March 31, 2011. Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is an international underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance products in the property and casualty market. The Company is headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Posts $1.3MM March 31 Cleanup Liability --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of March 31, 2011, has accrued US$1.3 million for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or abatement at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow Central properties. With respect to asbestos-containing materials present at the City National Plaza and Brookhollow Central properties, these materials have been removed or abated from certain tenant and common areas of the building structures. The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos-containing materials from various areas of the building structures. Thomas Properties Group, Inc. is a full-service real estate company that owns, acquires, develops and manages primarily office, as well as mixed-use and residential properties on a nationwide basis. The Company is headquartered in Los Angeles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,123 New Claims at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc.'s Metropolitan Life Insurance Company subsidiary received about 1,123 new asbestos-related claims during the three months ended March 31, 2011, compared with 1,180 claims during the three months ended March 31, 2010. MLIC recorded 68,513 asbestos injury claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 68,804 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, March 25, 2011) MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos- related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. MetLife, Inc. provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East. The Company is organized into six segments: Insurance Products, Retirement Products, Corporate Benefit Funding and Auto & Home, and Japan and Other International Regions. The Company is headquartered in New York. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic's Reserves at $142.6MM at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation's net asbestosis and environmental claim reserves were US$142.6 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$144.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2010. The Company's gross asbestosis and environmental claim reserves were US$191.5 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$195.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2010. Old Republic International Corporation is engaged in the single business of insurance underwriting. It conducts its operations through a number of regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three major segments, namely its General Insurance (property and liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty and Title Insurance Groups. The Company is headquartered in Chicago. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Has AO Respirator Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cabot Corporation has asbestos-related exposure in connection with a safety respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical Corporation in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary. The Company's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators that are claimed to have been negligently designed or labeled. There were about 43,000 claimants as of March 31, 2011 and 45,000 claimants as of Sept. 30, 2010 in pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory products. The Company has a reserve to cover its expected share of liability for existing and future respirator liability claims. The book value of the reserve is being accreted up to the undiscounted liability through interest expense over the expected cash flow period, which is through 2062. The reserve was US$13 million at March 31, 2011 and US$15 million at Sept. 30, 2010 on a discounted basis (US$18 million at March 31, 2011 and US$20 million at Sept. 30, 2011 on an undiscounted basis). Cash payments related to this liability were about US$3 million in the first six months of fiscal 2011 and US$1 million in the first six months of fiscal 2010. Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and coatings. It has about 25 percent of the world market for the product. The Company is headquartered in Boston. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Still Has 260 Open Cases at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings, Corp., at March 31, 2011, was a co-defendant in about 260 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,230 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2011. At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company was a co-defendant in about 260 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,230 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, April 29, 2011) These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. There are six asbestos cases, involving 27 plaintiffs that plead specified damages. In each of the six cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$10 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$10 million for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million. In the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$10 million for six separate causes of action and US$5 million for the seventh cause of action. Park-Ohio Holdings, Corp. operates through three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products. The Company is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Still Subject to Injury, Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2011. The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and has various limits of liability depending on the insurance policy year in question. At the time a liability associated with a case becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues for the liability by a charge to earnings. For all other cases, an estimate of the costs associated with the matters cannot be made due to the inherent uncertainties in the litigation process. Bucyrus International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets high productivity mining equipment. The Company operates in two business segments: surface mining and underground mining. The Company is headquartered in South Milwaukee, Wis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms SeaRiver Summary Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, First District, California, upheld the ruling of the trial court, which granted summary judgment in favor of SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. in an asbestos case filed by Alan Bartholomew. The case is styled Alan Bartholomew, Plaintiff and Appellant v. SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., Defendants and Respondents. Judges Rivera, Ruvolo, and Sepulveda entered judgment in Case No. A127424 on March 16, 2011. This appeal arose from the asbestos-related injuries sustained by Mr. Bartholomew, a ship repair worker employed by West Winds, Inc., while working on various ships owned by SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. Mr. Bartholomew brought suit against SeaRiver as a vessel owner under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. SeaRiver moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The Appeals Court affirmed. Between 1977 and 1980, Mr. Bartholomew worked as a marine machinist at West Winds, a ship repair company located in San Francisco. During his employment, he worked on the maintenance and repair of numerous ships owned by SeaRiver. In particular, he performed repair work on pumps, valves, turbines, compressors, and other equipment on the ships. Mr. Bartholomew was diagnosed with asbestosis in or about October 2006. He contended that his condition resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products while working aboard SeaRiver's vessels, as well as from airborne asbestos fibers on those ships. On April 4, 2007, Mr. Bartholomew filed a complaint seeking damages for his asbestos exposure against numerous defendants, including SeaRiver. He claimed that SeaRiver was liable for vessel owner negligence under the LHWCA. Following a hearing on April 10, 2009, the trial court granted SeaRiver's motion for summary judgment. The ensuing judgment in SeaRiver's favor was filed on Nov. 2, 2009. This instant appeal followed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Issues Split Ruling in Ensley Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of North Carolina issued split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Grover M. Ensley, Plaintiff- employee v. FMC Corporation, Defendant-employer, Self-Insured and Broadspire, A Crawford Company, Defendant-servicing agent. Judges Steelman, Stephens and Hunter Jr. entered judgment in Case No. COA10-522 on March 15, 2011. This was an appeal by defendants from Opinion and Award entered on Dec. 29, 2009 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. The Commission properly awarded Grover M. Ensley permanent and total disability benefits where he was unable to work in any capacity as a result of his asbestosis. Mr. Ensley was employed by FMC Corporation at a chemical plant that manufactured lithium products. From 1962 until 1974, he performed various jobs, including operating machinery that made different chemicals and removing metal from "dipping cells" that were insulated with asbestos. In 1974, Mr. Ensley became a supervisor and oversaw 10 to 40 employees. He continued to work on the machinery and around asbestos insulation. As a supervisor, his chief responsibility was the main chemical building. There was asbestos insulation throughout the building surrounding the steam lines. In October 1996, Mr. Ensley was on short-term disability for about six months because of high blood pressure. He attempted to return to working four-hour days; however, his blood pressure remained high and he experienced anxiety attacks. In 2006, Mr. Ensley had chest x-rays that were reviewed by Dr. Jill Ohar, a board certified pulmonologist. She diagnosed Mr. Ensley with asbestosis and silicosis stemming from his employment with FMC. On Nov. 27, 2006, Mr. Ensley filed a Form 18B, initiating a claim for workers' compensation against FMC and Broadspire, FMC's servicing agent (collectively, defendants). FMC filed a Form 19 and Form 33R, which denied compensability of the claim. On Nov. 10, 2009, Mr. Ensley's claim was heard by the Full Commission. On Dec. 29, 2009, the Commission filed its Opinion and Award, and found that Mr. Ensley suffers from asbestosis as a result of his employment with FMC and that he is permanently and totally disabled. The Commission awarded him permanent total disability benefits at the rate of US$730 per week beginning Jan. 30, 2006 and continuing for the remainder of his life. FMC was also ordered to pay for Mr. Ensley's medical expenses and attorney's fees in the amount of 25 percent of the compensation approved. Defendants appealed. The Commission erred by ordering disability benefits to begin on Jan. 30, 2006. This ruling was reversed and remanded to the Commission with instructions to order disability benefits to begin as of June 18, 2006. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Flips Ruling in Sussex County Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County, in a case involving asbestos filed by Sussex County Plumbing, Inc. The case is styled Sussex County Plumbing, Inc., Plaintiff- Respondent v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant, and Penn National Insurance Company, Inc., Defendant-Respondent, and Sunalliance-Royal Insurance Company, Franklin Mutual Insurance Company, Travelers Insurance Company, and Great American Insurance Company, Defendants. Judges Grall, LeWinn and Coburn entered judgment in the case on March 16, 2011. Sussex filed a declaratory judgment action for insurance coverage. Defendants New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM) and Penn National Insurance Company filed cross-claims against each other. The other insurance company defendants were dismissed from the action. The underlying actions sought personal injury damages for asbestosis on behalf of Allen Wood and Alfred Notaro, who alleged that they were exposed to asbestos contained in products sold by Sussex and delivered by Sussex to work sites where they were employed. Penn settled the personal injury claims and sought contribution from NJM. Cross-motions for summary judgment were denied, and the case was then submitted to another judge on what the parties describe as a stipulation of facts. Penn was awarded judgment in the amount of US$80,540.56 plus interest. NJM appealed. NJM also contended that based on the stipulated facts concerning the underlying actions and the exclusions, it was entitled to judgment. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco's Long-Term March 31 Liability at $190MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$190,268,619 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$193,603,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010. The Company's current asbestos liabilities amounted to US$25 million as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010. The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivables were US$121,452,389 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$124,089,373 as of Dec. 31, 2010. 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: Open Claims v. Ampco Rise to 8,668 at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced about 8,668 open asbestos claims for the three months ended March 31, 2011, compared with 8,081 open claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010. For the three months ended March 31, 2011, gross settlement and defense costs were US$3,471,000 and the Company recorded about 195 claims settled or dismissed. 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 (Asbestos Liability) and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution and another former division of the Company. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. In 2006, for the first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability against one of the Company's subsidiaries was tried to a jury. The trial resulted in a defense verdict. Plaintiffs appealed that verdict and in 2008 the California Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court. 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: Dismissal of Ampco From Howden Case in Progress ---------------------------------------------------------------- The dismissal of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation from an asbestos- related insurance litigation regarding Howden North America, Inc. is now in process. 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 480 as of March 31, 2011, 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 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 Corporation and its subsidiaries covered by the applicable policies. 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 Company and that carrier concluded a settlement generally consistent with the Coverage Arrangement, and all claims between that carrier and the Company were dismissed with prejudice on Dec. 8, 2010. In April 2011, the Company and the other carrier that issued Excess Policies also concluded a settlement generally consistent with the Coverage Arrangement. 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 Case v. 13 Insurance Firms in Pa. Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and its Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, since Feb. 24, 2011, is pursuing 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 the 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: TMS, Former Units Subject to Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- TMS International Corp. and two of its former affiliates are subject to asbestos-related actions. Two non-operating subsidiaries of a predecessor company, along with a landfill and waste management business, were spun-off to the Company's former stockholders in October 2002. The two former subsidiaries were subject to asbestos related personal injury claims. The Company said it believes that it has no obligation for asbestos related claims regarding the spun-off subsidiaries. In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in certain asbestos-related claims relating to lines of business that were discontinued over 20 years ago. The Company said it believes that it is sufficiently protected by insurance with respect to these asbestos-related claims related to these former lines of business. TMS International Corp. provides outsourced industrial services to steel mills in North America with a substantial international presence. The Company operates at 74 customer sites in nine countries and has a raw materials procurement network that extends to five continents. The Company is headquartered in Glassport, Pa. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Has 84 Personal Injury Cases at April 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belden Inc. is facing asbestos-related personal injury cases, of which 84 are pending as of April 24, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2011. Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in Pennsylvania and Illinois, generally seeking compensatory, special, and punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a heat-resistant asbestos fiber. The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products that contained the fiber, but ceased production of such products more than 20 years ago. Through April 24, 2011, the Company has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be dismissed, in more than 400 similar cases without any going to trial, and with only a small number of these involving any payment to the claimant. Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets cable, connectivity, and networking products in markets including industrial, enterprise, broadcast, and consumer electronics. The Company is headquartered in St. Louis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Ongoing Against Regal Beloit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Regal Beloit Corporation is, from time to time, party to litigation that arises in the normal course of its business operations, including asbestos litigation matters. The Company's products are used in a variety of industrial, commercial and residential applications that subject the Company to claims that the use of its products is alleged to have resulted in injury or other damage. Regal Beloit Corporation manufactures electric motors and controls, electric generators and controls, and mechanical motion control products. The Company is headquartered in Beloit, Wis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products. The complaints in these cases are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of the claims seek damages from the Company alone. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets and sells consumer branded products for lawn and garden care. The Company's primary customers include home centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers and food and drug stores. The Company is based in Marysville, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 21 Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Imperial Industries, Inc.'s Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co. subsidiary is a defendant together with non-affiliated parties in 21 claims (11 of which include the Company as a defendant), which allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago. The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance carriers including both primary and excess/umbrella liability carriers that have provided liability coverage to the Company, including potential coverage for alleged injuries relating to asbestos exposure. Several of these insurance carriers have been and continue to provide a defense to Premix and the Company under a reservation of rights in all of the asbestos cases. Certain of these underlying insurance carriers have denied coverage to Premix and the Company on the basis that certain exclusions preclude coverage and/or that their policies have been exhausted. In June 2009, one such carrier filed suit in Miami- Dade Circuit Court against Premix and the Company, wherein the carrier sought a declaration from the Court that its insurance policies do not provide coverage for the asbestos claims against Premix and the Company. The carrier also asserted a claim for reimbursement of defense costs and indemnity payments that it voluntarily made on the Company's behalf in prior asbestos claims. In December 2010, Premix, the Company and this carrier resolved their dispute, with the carrier agreeing to pay a settlement of US$500,000 to Premix and the Company. As part of the settlement, there is no longer coverage available under that disputed policy. The settlement was recorded as a receivable and included in other current assets in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of Dec. 31, 2010, and as income reflected as litigation settlement during the fourth quarter of 2010. The Company received actual payment of the US$500,000 during the first quarter of 2011. During the first quarter of 2011, the Company resolved a dispute with another carrier regarding primary-layer insurance coverage, which resulted in this carrier paying a settlement of US$325,000 to Premix and the Company. As part of the settlement, there is no longer coverage available under that disputed policy. The receipt of the second settlement was recorded as income and reflected as litigation settlement in the accompanying statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2011. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company said it believes, when considering that it and Premix have substantial umbrella/excess coverage for these claims, that the Company has more than adequate insurance coverage for these asbestos claims and such policies are not subject to self-insured retention (SIR). Imperial Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes building materials to building materials dealers, contractors and others located primarily in Florida, and to a lesser extent, other states in the Southeastern United States. The Company has two facilities, of which one is used primarily for producing, marketing and distributing its manufactured products. The Company is headquartered in Pompano Beach, Fla. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Has Asbestos Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenneco Inc. is subject to a number of lawsuits initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. In the early 2000s, the Company was named in nearly 20,000 complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court and the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to asbestos from its product categories. Most of these claims have been dismissed and the Company's current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's subsidiaries. The balance of the claims is related to alleged exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products. A small percentage of the claimants allege that they were automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim against the Company. Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number of each in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries. Tenneco Inc. produces emission control and ride control products and systems for light, commercial and specialty vehicle applications. The Company is based in Lake Forest, Ill. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Party to Injury Suits in 4 States --------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants, still faces 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: Riley Action v. 45 Firms Filed in Jefferson Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ernest D. Riley, on May 26, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against A. W. Chesterton Company and 44 other defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. Court records allege Mr. Riley was exposed to asbestos while working as a welder and pipefitter at the defendants' Jefferson County premises from 1956 until 1979. Mr. Riley sues for actual and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate and other relief the court deems just. Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins Jr., Esq., represents Mr. Riley. Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, has been assigned to Case No. A190-115. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nolen Case Against 137 Firms Filed on April 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Issac Nolen and wife Annie B. Nolen, of Collinsville, Va., filed an asbestos lawsuit against 137 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on April 27, 2011, The West Virginia Record reports. According to the complaint, Mr. Nolen was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Feb. 24, 2011. He claims he smoked cigarettes from 1960 until 1989, but has since quit. Mr. Nolen was employed by the defendants between the 1960s and 1980s. His father was also a pipefitter in the 1950s and 1960s, according to the suit. He claims the defendants caused his mesothelioma because they failed to warn him of the dangers. The Nolens seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. Victoria Antion, Esq., and Gary W. Kendall, Esq., represent the Nolens. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-691 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comer's Lawsuit v. 143 Firms Filed on April 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- A Highland Springs, Va., couple, Edward L. Comer and Barbara Comer, on April 27, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 143 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. According to the complaint, Mr. Comer was diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 8, 2011. He claims he smoked cigarettes until 1986, but completely quit in that year. Mr. Comer claims he was exposed to asbestos fibers during his employment as an insulator from 1960 until 1984. The Comers seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. Victoria Antion, Esq., and Gary W. Kendall, Esq., represent the Comers. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-693 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barton Lawsuit v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit styled Joan W. Barton, executrix of the Estate of Howard William Barton vs. 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Aurora Pump Company; et al was filed on May 25, 2011 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Joan W. Barton claims the 65 defendant corporations are responsible for her late husband's asbestosis bilateral and death. She seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues. Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represents Mrs. Barton and Case No. 11-C-859 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tawney Lawsuit v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit styled Jack L. Tawney and Frances E. Tawney, his wife vs. 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Aurora Pump Company; et al was filed on May 23, 2011 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. The Tawneys claim the 65 defendants are responsible for Mr. Tawney's asbestosis. They seek a jury trial to resolve all issues. Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represents the Tawneys. Case No. 11-C-846 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EA Calls for Help on Illegal Disposal Matters -------------------------------------------------------------- The Environment Agency are appealing for information after a lorry load of asbestos sheeting was dumped on the Ribble Link Way in Preston on May 31, 2011, near lock number 8, according to an Environment Agency press release dated June 6, 2011. A member of the public informed the Environment Agency of the dumping through its incident hotline number 0800 80 70 60. Officers who attended the scene found that it contained broken asbestos sheeting which also covered bags of asbestos waste. British Waterways, who owns the land, has now cordoned off and covered this hazardous waste, and are employing approved contractors to remove and dispose of the waste correctly. Paul Shelton, investigating for the Environment Agency said, "We are urging anyone with any information as to the source of the waste to come forward so that we can ensure that these criminals do not continue to dump waste illegally." If you have any information on this dumping please contact Paul Shelton, Environmental Crime Officer on 01772 714211, or if you spot any other environmental incidents call EA's 24 hour incident hotline on 0800 80 70 60. Anyone who uses other individuals or businesses to dispose of their waste needs to ensure that the waste is disposed of legally. It is an offense for a member of the public to give their waste to an un-permitted firm. Remember to ask to see the companies waste carriers license or to find out if a firm is licensed contact the Environment Agency on 08708 506 506. ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Todd Fined Over Breaches at Oswestry Site --------------------------------------------------------------- A court heard that John Todd Ltd, a refurbishment company exposed two of its workers to asbestos-containing materials at a site in Oswestry, Shropshire, England, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated June 3, 2011. The HSE prosecuted John Todd Ltd, of Middletown, Powys, Wales, over the incident at Mile Oak Industrial Estate, Maesbury Road. John Todd had been commissioned to refurbish a building on the estate but when licensed asbestos removal contractors arrived on site on Oct. 18, 201, they found two self-employed workers and company director John Todd had already started to remove the material. Shrewsbury Magistrates' Court heard the Company had taken no precautions to prevent the spread of fibers. Asbestos insulation boards had been prised off and timber studding with broken fragments of asbestos had been placed into an unprotected skip, together with broken floor tiles which also contained asbestos. HSE attended the site and immediately stopped all work due to the risk to those working there. John Todd Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined GBP10,000 and ordered to pay GBP10,000 costs. After the hearing, HSE inspector Nic Rigby said, "John Todd Ltd showed an absolute disregard for the health and safety of workers on the site by allowing work with asbestos to take place fully aware it was present." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exeter Dockyard Worker's Death Linked to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at County Hall in Exeter, Devon, England, heard that the death of Barrie Sparham, a man who was honored by the Queen for his role providing equipment for the first Gulf war, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Exeter Express and Echo reports. Mr. Sparham was an engineering apprentice at Portsmouth dockyard between 1962 and 1965 when he was exposed to the hazardous material. At Mr. Sparham's inquest, evidence was heard of how he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and managed to stay at home until the last six days of his life when he was transferred to a hospice. He died at the age of 67 on Feb. 15, 2011. Exeter and Greater Devon coroner Elizabeth Earland heard how Mr. Sparham would often work in tight conditions as an apprentice that would leave him exposed to asbestos. Despite this, he would change his overalls once every two weeks, as instructed by the Ministry of Defence at the time. After finishing his apprenticeship, Mr. Sparham went to work for a company that produced heating and air-conditioning equipment. His role as sales engineer often took him to Europe. He worked his way up to a managerial role and, by the age of 28, he was running Deep Sea Seals, producing stern shafts for shipping. Mr. Barrie then joined Ferguson Tankers in Portsmouth which was bought out by Reynolds Boughton in 1982. The company produced fire crash tenders for major airports around the world. In 1991, he was approached by the Government to make water and fuel- carrying equipment for the first Gulf War. It was a job which Mr. Barrie achieved with great success and under considerable pressure. He was awarded the OBE for his outstanding work. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio AG's Lawsuit v. Contractor Filed on June 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ohio Attorney General's Office, on June 7, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against Cleveland-based contractor Richard's "Your Outdoor Connection" Inc., contractor Richard Whitt and building owner Donald J. Mountain in Lorain County Common Pleas Court, The Morning Journal reports. According to the complaint, the contractor did not comply with Ohio's asbestos abatement laws when two residences were demolished in 2007. Mr. Whitt demolished the structures at 518-522 Middle Ave., Elyria, from May 2, 2007 to May 24, 2007, according to the complaint. However, he was not an asbestos abatement contractor licensed to do business in Ohio, according to the complaint. Mr. Whitt also did not provide adequate notice of the demolition to the Ohio Environmental Agency and did not get a proper inspection for asbestos, the state complaint said. The AG's office seeks penalties of up to US$25,000 for each day of violation. The complaint also seeks a court order for Whitt to observe proper procedures for inspections, demolitions and abating asbestos. Richard's "Your Outdoor Connection" Inc. was a family owned company that went out of business in 2008 when the U.S. economy went bad, said Michael Boukzam, who bought the company's name. Mr. Boukzam said he purchased the naming rights and telephone number to the business, but did not work for the company in 2007. He added that his company works mostly on tree trimming and removal and gets the proper licenses, bonds and permits for the cities around northern Ohio where it works. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Records Monitoring Results for Joplin Zone --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 is sharing online the results of its ongoing air monitoring activities within the Joplin, Mo., tornado impact zone, according to an EPA press release dated June 7, 2011. So far, the data from Region 7's air sampling for asbestos and particulate matter, which began on May 28, 2011 has not indicated any health-related concerns. As additional data is collected and analyzed, EPA will post those results at http://www.epa.gov/joplin, which also contains fact sheets, health and safety information, and other materials related to the EPA's response to the May 22, 2011 tornado. As one of its missions assigned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), EPA developed a plan to conduct air monitoring to protect public health as the recovery efforts in Joplin continue. That plan includes sampling the air at various locations in and around the tornado's impact zone, with an emphasis on monitoring for asbestos and particulate matter. To minimize exposure to asbestos fibers and particulate matter in the impact zone, EPA recommends that persons use NIOSH-approved N- 100, P-100 or R-100 respirators. If worn improperly, respirators may provide little or no protection. Instructions for proper use of a respirator must be followed carefully and closely. EPA's air sampling will be adjusted as conditions warrant change. The amount of demolition and debris removal or burning, the results of air sampling, and other factors may result in changes to EPA's plan. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cambria Local Sentenced for Disposal Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luther Sherman Akers, a 69 year old man from Cambria, Calif., was sentenced on June 6, 2011, to 20 days in County Jail after entering a no-contest plea agreement on June 1, 2011, to misdemeanor illegal disposal of hazardous waste, The Tribune reports. Mr. Akers was charged with illegal removal of asbestos and unpermitted renovations at the former Cambria Air Force Station, a Cold War-era military radar site. Property owner Bernd Schaefers faces two ongoing misdemeanor charges involving coastal zone land-use law. He has pleaded not guilty. Between 2005 and 2007, about 20 people lived on the property and performed work including construction, cooking and gardening, Mr. Akers told an investigator with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. One former resident told investigators that she received room and board at the facility in exchange for work that included removing insulation materials that investigators said contained asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peart Claim v. 35 Firms Filed on May 25 in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of Freeman Eugene Peart, on May 25, 2011, has filed an asbestos suit against American Optical Corporation and 34 other companies in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Peart lived in Texas and worked as a laborer, welder, pipefitter and boilermaker throughout his career. Mr. Peart was allegedly exposed to asbestos products during the unspecified employment, which caused him to develop an asbestos- related illness. The suit does not state when he died. This is the second lawsuit filed on behalf of Freeman Eugene Peart. He filed the first complaint for a different asbestos- related disease than what he died from, according to the suit. Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins Jr., Esq., represents the estate. Judge Milton Shuffield, 136thth District Court, has been assigned to Case No. D190-108. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gipson Lawsuit v. 57 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles E. Gipson and Esther Laverne Gipson, a couple from Flatwoods, Ky., on April 27, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 57 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. According to the complaint, on May 15, 2010, Mr. Gipson was diagnosed with lung cancer. He claims the defendants are responsible for his lung cancer because they exposed him to asbestos fibers during his employment career. Mr. Gipson smoked cigarettes from 1960 until 1995, but has since quit. He was also a member of the U.S. States Army from 1948 until 1951, according to the suit. The Gipsons seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. They are being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee, Esq., John D. Hurst, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-692 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkeley Pensioner's Death Related to Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of John Ormrod, a 65-year-old pensioner from Berkeley, Gloucestershire, England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Gazette reports. The inquest heard that Mr. Ormrod died in March 2011 from malignant mesothelioma. He had worked at Turners cement works in Widnes from 1966 until 1973 and at Laporte Industries in the Cheshire town from 1973 until 1988. In a statement made before his death in support of a compensation claim, Mr. Ormrod said Turners manufactured a range of asbestos products including pipes, guttering and sheets. At Laporte Industries, there was a tremendous amount of asbestos- lagged piping. The asbestos was in poor repair and fitters worked in pairs to strip the lagging and replace it. On one occasion when temperatures in the factory soared, asbestos sheets were removed by smashing them with hammers. Mr. Ormrod was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in October 2009 after suffering persistent chest infections. He underwent chemotherapy treatment and was reasonably well until March 2011 when he started to deteriorate. He died at his home on March 16, 2011. A post mortem examination was carried out by pathologist Dr. Linmarie Ludeman and she said sample analysis revealed 34,445 mineral fibers per gram of dry lung tissue. This was a low reading, she said, but within the range consistent with asbestos exposure during employment. She gave the cause of death as due to malignant mesothelioma. Gloucestershire deputy coroner David Dooley said it was his understanding that Mr. Ormrod's civil claim had been settled in his favor. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Men Charges for N.Y. Hazard Disposal Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal prosecutors said on June 3, 2011 that a central New York farmer, a New Jersey demolition company, its owner and two other men dumped 30,000 tons of asbestos-contaminated construction debris on farmland near New York's Mohawk River in 2006, the Associated Press reports. Authorities said the conspirators planned to continue dumping pulverized refuse in wetlands and the river's flood plain over five years using a fake state permit. The indictment unsealed on June 3, 2011 named Mazza & Sons of Tinton Falls, N.J., 60-year-old company owner Dominick Mazza, and 59-year-old farm owner Cross Nicastro II of Frankfort. Also charged were 69-year-old Julius DeSimone of Rome, N.Y., and 54- year-old Donald Torriero of Wellington, Fla. The men were arrested on June 3, 2011. Prosecutors said Mr. DeSimone managed excavation and dumping at the site, and Mr. Torriero fabricated and transmitted the fake permit. Defense attorney Paul Brickfield, Esq., said pleas of not guilty were entered on behalf of the company and Mr. Mazza, who was released on his own recognizance from the federal court in Newark. On June 3, 2011, Mr. Nicastro pleaded not guilty in Syracuse and was released. The others were expected to enter similar pleas. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Dorset Pensioners' Deaths Linked to Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- Inquests at Bournemouth, England, heard that the deaths of two Dorset pensioners were related to exposure to asbestos, the Daily Echo reports. 73-year-old Patricia Morgan, of Christchurch, Dorset, had worked as a secretary at the London Asbestos Company in 1961 to 1963. She kept sample bags of asbestos in her desk drawer, where she also stored her handbag. In a statement before her death, Ms. Morgan said she was given a piece of asbestos to feel, and had to go to the warehouse to fetch samples. At no time was she provided with protection or given any warnings. In March 2010, she was taken to hospital and diagnosed with mesothelioma. Trevor Pitman, of Queen's Park, Bournemouth, died from mesothelioma and bronchial pneumonia on March 2011 at the age of 92. He was an engineer in the Merchant Navy during World War Two at a time when asbestos lagging was used in many ships. After the war, Mr. Pitman joined General Accident (now Aviva) as an engineer and surveyor, carrying out inspections in many buildings with asbestos. He said he was never given any protective gear or warnings. District Coroner Sheriff Payne recorded verdicts that Mr. Pitman and Ms. Morgan both died as a result of developing industrial disease after being exposed to asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Securities Fraud Case v. Halliburton Reinstated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court, on June 6, 2011, reinstated a lawsuit by a group of mutual and pension fund investors who claimed Halliburton Co. understated its asbestos liabilities while overstating revenues in its engineering and construction business and the benefits of its merger with Dresser Industries, Reuters reports. The justices unanimously ruled that a U.S. appeals court erred in rejecting class certification in the securities fraud lawsuit filed in 2002 on behalf of all buyers of Halliburton stock between June 1999 and December 2001. Shares of the oilfield services company fell right after news of the ruling. Shares were down 4.8% at US$47.88, off US$2.40, in late afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The alleged misstatements artificially pumped up Halliburton's stock price, the lawsuit said, adding that the Houston-based company eventually made corrective disclosures that caused its stock price to fall. Halliburton said it looked forward to presenting its arguments when the case goes back to the appeals court. The Supreme Court case is Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton, No. 09-1403. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Dismissal of Bland's Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed the ruling of the trial court, which administratively dismissed an asbestos complaint filed by Raymond S. Bland, Executor of the Estate of Albert E. Bland, and Mary L. Bland. The case is styled Raymond S. Bland, Executor of the Estate of Albert E. Bland, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Ajax Magnathermic Corp., et al., Defendants-Appellees. Judges Kathleen Ann Keough, Colleen Conway Cooney, and Kenneth A. Rocco entered judgment in Case No. 95249 on March 17, 2011. Albert E. Bland passed away on Nov. 2, 2009, and this court granted appellants' motion for substitution of parties. In August 2009, Albert and Mary Bland filed an asbestos-related complaint against several companies, including Dana Companies, LLC, Foseco, Inc., Industrial Holdings Corporation, Trane US, Inc., and Traco Construction Services, Inc. f/k/a The Rust Engineering Company, as well as "John Does 1-100 Manufacturers, Sellers, or Installers of Asbestos-Containing Products". The complaint alleged injury to Albert Bland from workplace exposure to products containing asbestos from 1959 through 1993. The appellees moved to administratively dismiss the Blands' complaint for failure to provide the required prima facie evidence to establish a claim for asbestosis. Defendants Flowserve Corp. f/k/a Durametallic Corp., Gardner Denver Inc., Bosch Rexroth Corporation, and Eaton Hydraulics, LLC and its Char-Lynn Hydraulic Motors Division joined in the motion to administratively dismiss. Following a hearing on appellees' motion, the trial court issued an order administratively dismissing the Blands' complaint without prejudice. The Blands appealed, arguing in their sole assignment of error that the trial court erred when it granted appellees' motion to administratively dismiss their complaint. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Colgate-Palmolive Bid in Tedrick Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court, New York County, New York, granted Colgate- Palmolive Company's in limine motion of apparent first impression in asbestos litigation filed on behalf of Karen Tedrick. The case is styled Lori Konopka-Sauer and Richard Konopka, as Executors of the Estate of Karen Tedrick, Plaintiff v. Colgate- Palmolive Company, Defendant. Judge Martin Shulman entered judgment in Case No. 190078/08 on March 11, 2011. Colgate-Palmolive Company had filed an in limine motion of apparent first impression in asbestos litigation to apply Oregon law, which would cap any potential non-economic damage award Plaintiffs, Lori Konopka-Sauer and Richard Konopka, as Executors of the Estate of Karen Tedrick, could receive in this personal injury/wrongful death action. Prior to her death, decedent plaintiff, Karen Tedrick filed her personal injury action in New York on Nov. 14, 2008, alleging she contracted mesothelioma from asbestos exposure through her historic use of Cashmere Bouquet dusting powder, a talc powder product C-P manufactured and sold. Plaintiff, born on Nov. 6, 1946, was raised and educated in Michigan and continuously resided in that state until April 1969. In April 1969, Tedrick was hired as an American Airlines flight attendant, left Michigan to complete a two-month training course at American Airlines Stewardess College in Dallas/Forth Worth, Texas and resided there on campus. After successfully completing the flight attendant training program, Tedrick was posted to New York City to cover domestic flights to and from LaGuardia, JFK and Newark Airports. During the next two years, Plaintiff with three and then two of her colleagues successively shared two 1-bedroom apartments in New York City. From the age of 12, Plaintiff began using the talc powder. She liked its floral scent which reminded her of her mother and made its use a part of her daily hygiene regimen (sometimes multiple times a day) and always after every bath/shower. Plaintiff was generous with her use of this product on her person and talc powder residue would typically cloud the air and settle on surfaces in any bathroom she used. For almost 15 years, Tedrick exhibited brand loyalty through her daily and repeated use of this product. Eventually, Tedrick stopped using any fragrance product in the late 1970s due to allergies. From Los Angeles, Plaintiff moved to Chicago, Illinois in March 1972, and after four years, divorced her husban. From 1976-1985, Plaintiff engaged in various jobs, remarried and divorced again, completed her course work at Northeastern University to finally obtain a B.A. in psychology and relocated back to Los Angeles. During that period, Tedrick, while employed in the social services field, actively pursued her interest in yoga as a therapeutic modality and became a certified yoga instructor. In 1993, Plaintiff moved to Oregon, bought a home and became a mental health care professional until she retired in 2008 at or about the age of 62. Shortly after Karen retired, she began exhibiting flu-like symptoms (i.e., dry cough, weakness, fatigue, etc.) and experiencing unusually intense pain in the upper part of her body. In September-October 2008, after consulting with various specialists, undergoing imaging studies and having a needle biopsy, Karen learned she had malignant pleural mesothelioma, would suffer progressive breathing difficulties and have a pain- filled, remaining life expectancy of anywhere from 8 to 9 months. Within a year of diagnosis, Karen decided to end her life and did so in accordance with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODWDA). Shortly thereafter, Oregon counsel was retained to admit Plaintiff's will to probate in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, and Karen's brother, Richard Konopka, and sister, Lori Konopka-Sauer, were appointed her personal representatives. On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff's siblings became plaintiffs in this action ("Estate-Plaintiffs") and amended the complaint to assert a wrongful death claim against C-P. Tedrick's brother had been a long term resident of Oregon, but, because of his career in the military, maintains a second home in Georgia, whereas Plaintiff's sister is currently a Georgia resident. Neither sibling has ever worked or resided in New York. Accordingly, Defendant's in limine motion to apply ORS s 31.710 which would cap any potential non-economic damage award at US$500,000 is granted. Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP, represented Plaintiff and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, represented Defendant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Decision in Umbaugh's Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the May 22, 2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied James Umbaugh entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disability and cancer of the larynx. The case is styled James Umbaugh, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Holdaway entered judgment in Case No. 09-2402 on March 17, 2011. Mr. Umbaugh served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from April 1957 to April 1959. In August 2000, the VA regional office (RO) issued a rating decision denying Mr. Umbaugh's claim for service connection for coronary artery disease, emphysema, and total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) on the basis that the law prohibited establishment of service connection for diseases or injuries attributable to the use of tobacco products during service. In September 2000, Mr. Umbaugh submitted "a request to reopen my claim for service-connection for emphysema and coronary-artery disease." The RO issued a rating decision in September 2001 denying entitlement to service connection for emphysema, coronary artery disease, and cancer of the larynx. In February 2002, Mr. Umbaugh submitted a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with the Board's rating decision. After he perfected his appeal, in a March 2006, the Board denied service connection for emphysema, coronary artery disease, and cancer of the larynx. In November 2007, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for remand. The parties agreed that VA had not satisfied its duty to assist in developing Mr. Umbaugh's claim for entitlement to service connection for emphysema and cancer of the larynx because VA had not provided a medical examination. Mr. Umbaugh indicated in the joint motion that he no longer wished to pursue his claim for coronary artery disease. In August 2008, the Board remanded the claims for service connection for emphysema and cancer of the larynx. In January 2009, Mr. Umbaugh underwent a VA compensation and pension examination to evaluate his respiratory diseases. The examiner diagnosed the appellant with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and opined that the condition was caused by "50k years of smoking." The examiner also noted that there was no evidence of asbestosis, which is a restrictive condition, as opposed to Mr. Umbaugh's COPD, which is obstructive. The same month, Mr. Umbaugh underwent a compensation and pension examination of the nose, sinus, larynx, and pharynx. The examiner noted that Mr. Umbaugh had been treated with radiation therapy for carcinoma of the glottis larynx in June 2000. The examiner noted that Mr. Umbaugh reported continuing use of "five to six cigarettes per day" and that he drank "about a six- pack of beer in a one-month time span." He ruled out asbestos exposure, opining that the most likely cause of Mr. Umbaugh's condition had been "50k years of smoking" with alcohol consumption being another likely cause. In March 2009, the RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case that continued the denial of entitlement to service connection for respiratory condition and larynx cancer. On May 22, 2009, the Board issued its decision denying Mr. Umbaugh's claims for service connection for a respiratory condition and cancer of the larynx. This appeal followed. ********* 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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Julie Anne Lopez, 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 * * *