/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120323.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 23, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 59 Headlines ADAMS GOLF: Recorded $1.3-MM Settlement Expense Recovery in 2011 AGENUS INC: Objectors' Appeals in IPO-Related Suit Dismissed AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: "Kassin" IPO-Related Class Suit Resolved AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Accord Design Defect APPLE REIT SIX: Faces Another Shareholder Suit in New York BEKINS VAN: Sued Over Unlawful Modification of Vacation Policies BON HIVER: Recalls 200 Freebase Snowboard Bindings BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Rosendahl" Suit BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defends Consolidated Suit in California BRILL SECURITIES: Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration CHARLES SCHWAB: In Dispute with Finra Over Arbitration Process CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Faces SureWest Merger-Related Suits CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Suit Over Underpaid Royalties Still Pending COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA: May Face Suits Over Housing Policies CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Unit Faces Another Class Suit in Arkansas DAVEY TREE: Unit Settled "Ely" Suit for $2.9-Mil. in January DAVID STERN: June 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set GOV'T OF ALBERTA: May 4 Foster Care Suit Opt-Out Deadline Set GOV'T OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Coerced Adoptions GREAT WOLF: Being Sold to Apollo for Too Little, Suit Claims GREAT WOLF: Faces Another Suit Over Proposed Sale to Apollo IMMERSION CORP: Consolidated IPO Litigation Has Concluded IMMERSION CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit KOSMOS ENERGY: Faces IPO-Related Securities Suit in Texas LIFEWAY FOODS: Misleads Bio Kefir & ProBugs Consumers, Suit Says METROPOLITAN HEALTH: Court Okays Merger-Related Suit Settlement NOVATEL WIRELESS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif. OLIVE GARDEN: Faces Wage Class Action in California PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Three Securities Suits in California RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal ROADRUNNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Ariz. RON WILSON: Attorney to Launch Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme SANOFI: Awaits Mandate Dismissing Santa Clara Suit vs. Aventis SANOFI: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Securities Suit SANOFI: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Merial Over Heartgard Ads SANOFI: Settlement of AWP Suits vs. Units Gets Final OK in Dec. SANOFI: Unit Faces 10 Class Suits Over Frontline Advertisement SANOFI: Unit Settled DDAVP Direct Purchasers' Claims in August SANTARUS INC: Settled Wage and Hour Class Suit Last Month SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Faces Overtime Class Action SERVICEMASTER CO: "Rudd" Suit Deal to Be Implemented in 2012 SILICON IMAGE: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Now Concluded SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Class Action Complaint Amended SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Awaits OK of Consolidated Suit Settlement SUNRISE SENIOR: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Purnell" Suit VERENIUM CORP: Settlement of IPO Shareholder Suits Now Final WALTER ENERGY: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action WORLD WRESTLING: Settlement of IPO-Related Suit Completed YMCA: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Assault Incidents ZOLL MEDICAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Mass. Suit Claims Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Remains a Defendant in 30 Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 29,064 Pending Suits v. General Cable at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 50,090 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Had 5,443 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26,000 Pending Claims v. Dana Holding at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Continues to Seek Coverage for Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brunswick Unit Still a Defendant in 2,500 Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 23,682 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $431.1MM Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $12.2M 2011 Liability & Defense Costs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Has Net Reserves of $32.2MM at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Sees $7.4MM Cash Outflow in 2012 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler UK Units Have 301 Open Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler US Units Have 124,540 Open Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Has $1MM Payable Under Trust in 2012 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria's Conditional Obligations Reach $10MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $10M Accrued Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: $49.6MM Remains Due Under Cooper's Settlement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Remains a Defendant in Filter Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS International Still a Defendant in PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Continue to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Faces 12,000 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had 746 Open Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Host Hotels Records $3MM Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Power's Removal Cost Estimated at $300,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings' ARO at Dec. 31 Was $18.1 Million ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Cases vs. Fluor Corp. Have Decreased ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITC Holdings Records $3.6MM ARO at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket's Undiscounted Liability Is $11MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Remains a Defendant in PI Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had 8,072 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still a Defendant in 2,321 Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loews' CNA Unit Still Exposed to Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Ct. Dismisses Complaint v. GE, et al. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Ct. Reverses Dismissal of Whipkey Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Junks Suit v. Crane Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Must Show Source of Coverage ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Not Entitled to Liability Reduction ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Refuses to Rule on Work-Related Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Steel Lawyer Calls John Crane "Plaintiff Foil" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Halts Demolition on Contaminated House ASBESTOS UPDATE: Debate Over Bill to Pay Off Widowed Families ASBESTOS UPDATE: Visitors May Have Been Exposed in Corgi Hosiery ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Mesothelioma Victims Plea on Government Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Takers for US Navy Facility Demolition Costs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Del Puerto Hospital Still Stir Up Neighbors ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call to Quebec's NDP MPs to Expose Paradis' Role ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPSM Provides Data for Constructors/Electricians ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants Spark Urge to Relocate Academy ASBESTOS UPDATE: DPH Vows Danvers Dumpers Will Face Prosecution ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yorkshire School Carcinogen-Free by April 16 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Azko Nobel's Move to Reveal Trust Claims Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Individual Unions Oppose Opening of Mines ASBESTOS UPDATE: Visiting Councilors May Be Exposed to Carcinogens ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turnall Profits Hike On Non-Asbestos Products ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Ex-Welder's Mate to Pursue Legal Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old City Hall Redo Expected to Complete By April ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Points to Carcinogenic Dust From Books ASBESTOS UPDATE: Webber v. Ford Motor Un-Ends With Post Trial Move ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gillam Has Always Been a Hazmat Disposal Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: KDEP Aids Cleanup After Calamity, Warns of Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medway Council Hunts Down Illegal Fly-Tippers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Testify in Case Over Sailor's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurbrugg Hospital Toxic Debris Remain Unheeded ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPSM Provides Data for Industrial/Plant Workers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peacock's "Toxic Chronicles" Will Highlight AIAAC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bernie Banton's Life Chronicled in "Devil's Dust" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calgary Univ. Faculty's Death Raises Red Flags ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suntrust Tower Will be Tested for Carcinogens ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regulators to Restrict Alternative Demolition ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Takers for C$25MM Needed to Restart Mines ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sandy Cape Remains Open Despite Carcinogens Find ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Navy's Sinkex Program Raises Safety Alarms ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Passes Asbestos Awareness Resolution ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Hosts Pre-Demolition "Abatement Class" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Toxic Business Thrives in Thetford Mines ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIF Grants Over AU$700,000 To First Recipients ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Leads Carcinogen Handling Co In Charleston ASBESTOS UPDATE: Upton Residents Say No To Compost Plant Operation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cardiff Surveyor Misses Target, Fined GBP8,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition in Warrnambool Stirs Unaware Neighbors ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Delay Anglesea Skate Park Upgrades ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coulombe Says WHO Statistics a "Fantasy" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Prompt Macedon for All School Check ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Says Loan Should Be Used on Non-Toxics ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Thanks Sponsors of "Asbestos Awareness Week" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letter Pleas for Dr. Leitch to Choose Ethics ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sam Hider Reopens After Test Came Up Negative ********* ADAMS GOLF: Recorded $1.3-MM Settlement Expense Recovery in 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adams Golf, Inc. disclosed in its March 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that the $1.3 million recovery of expense in its settlement relating to a consolidated class action lawsuit was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2011. On June 17, 2010, the Court approved the final class action settlement regarding the consolidated securities class action filed in June 1999 in the United States District court of the District of Delaware. The court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against all defendants in the litigation. The settlement provided for a total payment to the class of $16.5 million in cash and a payment of the first $1.25 million, after attorneys fees and costs, actually received (if any) by the Company in connection with its litigation against its former insurance broker Thilman & Filipini, LLC ("T&F") and its former insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company ("ZAIC"). Of the $16.5 million cash settlement amount, $5 million was paid by the Company, which it accrued as a liability during the quarter ended September 30, 2009, and was paid to the settlement fund in March 2010. As part of the settlement, the underwriters for the initial public offering released the Company from any indemnification obligation. On July 19, 2010, the appeals period for the final order of dismissal expired and the litigation was fully and finally resolved. The Company disclosed that it maintains directors' and officers' and corporate liability insurance to cover certain risks associated with, among other things, securities law-based claims filed against the Company or its directors and officers. During the period covering its initial public offering, the Company maintained insurance from multiple carriers, each insuring a different layer of exposure, up to a total of $50 million. In June 1999, a class action lawsuit, which the Company settled in June 2010, was filed against it concerning its initial public offering. The Company says it has met the financial deductible of its directors' and officers' insurance policy for the period covered by the lawsuit. On March 30, 2006, ZAIC, which provided insurance coverage totaling $5 million for the layer of exposure between $15 million and $20 million, notified the Company that it was denying coverage of claims in the class action lawsuit because it was allegedly not timely notified of the class action lawsuit. On October 11, 2007, the Company filed a lawsuit against its former insurance broker, T&F, asserting various causes of action arising out of T&F's alleged failure to notify ZAIC of the class action lawsuit. T&F moved to dismiss the Company's lawsuit on the basis that the lawsuit was premature in that the Company had not been damaged because it had not paid any sums in satisfaction of a judgment or settlement of the class action securities litigation. That motion was denied pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 26, 2008. On November 16, 2009, the Company filed a Second Amended Complaint reasserting its causes of action against T&F and adding ZAIC as a defendant to the lawsuit, asserting various causes of action against it arising out of its denial of coverage for the class action lawsuit. On December 15, 2011, the Company entered into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with ZAIC to settle the Company's insurance coverage lawsuit against ZAIC. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, ZAIC agreed to pay the Company $7.65 million in cash. In addition, the Company and ZAIC agreed to release, the other party and the other party's affiliates, directors, officers and attorneys from any claims related to the lawsuit or the facts and circumstances at issue in the litigation. The Company also agreed to certain indemnification obligations. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement reached by the Company in the underlying class action lawsuit, the Company was required to pay the class action plaintiffs the first $1.25 million from the Company's recovery against ZAIC in the coverage lawsuit. Prior to December 31, 2011, the Company received the full settlement amount of $7.65 million and remitted the portion due to the class action plaintiffs of $1.25 million. The recovery of settlement expense, net of $1.3 million in legal fees incurred during 2011 was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2011 and is included in the statement of operations. AGENUS INC: Objectors' Appeals in IPO-Related Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Appeals filed by various objectors to Agenus Inc.'s settlement of a litigation over initial public offerings have been dismissed, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Agenus, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Garo H. Armen, Ph.D., and two investment banking firms that served as underwriters in the Company's initial public offering were named as defendants in a federal civil class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Substantially similar actions were filed concerning the initial public offerings for more than 300 different issuers, and the cases were coordinated for pre-trial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92. The lawsuit alleged that the brokerage arms of the investment banking firms charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of the Company's stock in the offering. The lawsuit also alleged that shares of the Company's stock were allocated to certain of the investment banking firms' customers based upon agreements by such customers to purchase additional shares of the Company's stock in the secondary market. These coordinated lawsuits were resolved pursuant to a global settlement. Any portion of the settlement attributable to Agenus has been funded by insurance, and Agenus bears no financial liability. Appeals filed by various objectors to the settlement have been dismissed. The Company states that no accrual has been recorded at December 31, 2011, for this action. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: "Kassin" IPO-Related Class Suit Resolved -------------------------------------------------------------- The litigation related to Agilent Technologies, Inc.'s initial public offering is now resolved, according to the Company's March 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012. In November 2001, a securities class action, Kassin v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639, was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") against certain investment bank underwriters for the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"), Agilent and various of its officers and directors at the time of the IPO. In 2003, the Court granted Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims against Agilent based on Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act, but denied Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims based on Section 11 of the Securities Act. In June 2004, papers formalizing a settlement among the plaintiffs, Agilent and more than 200 other issuer defendants and insurers were presented to the Court. Under the proposed settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Agilent and its directors and officers would be released, in exchange for a contingent payment (which, if made, would be paid by Agilent's insurer) and an assignment of certain potential claims. However, class certification of plaintiffs' underlying action against the underwriter defendants was a condition of the settlement. In December 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") reversed the Court's order certifying such a class in several "test cases" that had been selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs. In January 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the full bench of the Second Circuit. In April 2007, the Second Circuit issued an order denying rehearing but noted that plaintiffs are free to "seek certification of a more modest class." In June 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement between plaintiffs and the issuer defendants based on a stipulation among the parties. Plaintiffs have amended their allegations and filed amended complaints in six "test cases" (none of which involve Agilent). Defendants in these cases have moved to dismiss the amended complaints. In March 2008, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The parties have again reached a global settlement of the litigation and filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in April 2009. Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to Agilent, and Agilent would bear no financial liability. Agilent, as well as the officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the case. In October 2009, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. Four objectors appealed the Court's order to the Second Circuit. Of the four objectors, two withdrew their respective appeals. Of the remaining two appeals, the Second Circuit dismissed one and remanded the other to the Court for a determination of whether this objector is a proper member of the plaintiff class. The Court found this objector was not a proper class member, but the objector appealed that decision to the Second Circuit. Subsequently, the objector agreed to withdraw his appeal and the Second Circuit ordered the withdrawal on January 13, 2012. The case is, therefore, finished. Accordingly, the approved settlement is now final, and Agilent considers the entire matter resolved. AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Over Accord Design Defect ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that 2008-10 Honda Accords have "a systemic design defect that enables oil to enter into the engine's combustion chamber." A copy of the Complaint in Soto, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01377 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/HondaCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 E-mail: bterrell@tmdlegal.com - and - Steven N. Berk, Esq. Matthew J. Bonness, Esq. BERK LAW PLLC 2002 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 232-7550 E-mail: steven@berklawdc.com matt@berklawdc.com APPLE REIT SIX: Faces Another Shareholder Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Apple REIT Six, Inc. disclosed in its March 5, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that it is facing another shareholder class action lawsuit in New York. On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation. The District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012. The parties agreed to a schedule for answering or otherwise responding to the complaint and that briefing on any motion to dismiss the complaint will be concluded by June 18, 2012. The Company was previously named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. class action lawsuit. On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO, filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc. and David Lerner. The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates, Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida, asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities laws of Connecticut and Florida. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs and expenses. Brody Matter On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of the Company and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David Lerner Associates, Inc., and certain executives of David Lerner Associates, Inc. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Units of the Company and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., or those who otherwise acquired these Units, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates, Inc. defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state securities laws. Counsel for the plaintiff in Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. has consented to consolidating this case into the In re Apple REITs Litigation. The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends to defend against them vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any. BEKINS VAN: Sued Over Unlawful Modification of Vacation Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Dassoff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bekins Van Lines, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Paul Lombardo, Gary Wolfe, Joseph Sabga, Robert Land, and Douglas McGrath, Case No. 2012-CH-09428 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 15, 2012) arises from the Defendants' alleged deliberate and willful violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. In 2011, Bekins allegedly issued an unlawful modification to its longstanding vacation policies that effectively deprived its employees from receiving full compensation for their unused vacation days. The Plaintiff contends that Bekins issued this new policy two weeks after announcing a layoff that would terminate the positions of 102 employees. He asserts that despite the unduly short notice, Bekins required employees, including him and the putative Class, to use their vacation days prior to their date of termination, or forfeit those days without compensation. He alleges that the policy was nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to unlawfully reduce the amount of final compensation that employees would receive following their termination from the Company. Mr. Dassoff is a citizen of the state of Illinois, and was employed by Bekins as a full-time employee from March 18, 1997, until February I5, 2012. Bekins is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Indianapolis, Indiana. Bekins provides residential and commercial relocation services throughout the United States and Canada. The Individual Defendants are members of the Company's Board of Directors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq. SIPRUT PC 122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 588-1440 Facsimile: (312) 427-1850 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com gbarbakoff@siprut.com BON HIVER: Recalls 200 Freebase Snowboard Bindings -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bon Hiver Inc., of Chester, New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 200 Bon Hiver Freebase Snowboard Bindings. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The binding's base plate can fracture from impact during use, posing a fall hazard to snowboarders. Bon Hiver has received two reports of the base plates fracturing during use. There have been no reports of injuries or property damage. The recalled products are Bon Hiver Freebase snowboard bindings in the following models: 11 Series -- Assault or Infrared, 13 Series -- Arsenal or Hellfire and 18 Series -- Stealth or Storm. The bindings are sold in pairs. Each binding is made up of two pieces: a boot base and a base plate. The boot base, which attaches to the snowboarder's boot, has a high back, ankle strap, toe strap and footplate. It is made of plastic and aluminum, has six magnets on the underside of the footplate and is made in the following colors: black, blue, red and white. The Bon Hiver logo appears on the back of the boot base near the top and across the ankle strap. The words "Bon Hiver Snowboarding" appear on the heel. The series number is located next to the logo on the back of the boot base and on the side of one of the footplates. The base plate is flat and made of black plastic. It has four locking mechanisms to attach it to the board. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12134.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at BonHiver.com and ski and snowboard retailers from November 2011 to December 2011 for between $260 and $350. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bindings and return them to Bon Hiver for a free repair and a 20 percent refund of the purchase price. For additional information, please contact Bon Hiver at (877) 456-2320 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or e-mail the firm at customerservice@bonhiver.com BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Rosendahl" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In January 2011, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. received a copy of a complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies as defendants. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on January 11, 2011, and is captioned Rosendahl v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and the other defendants engaged in improper, fraudulent and illegal behavior in their efforts to recruit and retain students. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defends Consolidated Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is defending a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's March 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In February 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University, LLC, and certain employees as defendants. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego on February 17, 2011, and is captioned Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. The complaint generally alleges that the plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour protections under California law. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against it. In April 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company and Ashford University, LLC, as defendants. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego on April 25, 2011, and is captioned Moore v. Ashford University, LLC. The complaint generally alleges that the plaintiff and similarly situated employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour protections under California law. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. In May 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company as a defendant. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego on May 6, 2011, and is captioned Sanchez v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. The complaint generally alleges that the plaintiff and similarly situated employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour protections under California law. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. In October 2011, an order was issued by a judge in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego, to consolidate the cases entitled Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Moore v. Ashford University, LLC and Sanchez v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., which involve common questions of fact and law. The order designated Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. as the lead case. BRILL SECURITIES: Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------- Three stockbrokers won a resounding victory in the New York State Appellate Division, First Department as the Court found that the Plaintiffs could not be compelled to arbitrate their claims. The law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP represents the Plaintiff stockbrokers. The suit charges that during their employment at Brill Securities, Inc., stockbrokers were compensated solely by commissions yet consistently worked in excess of 40 hours a week and never received the legally mandated time-and-a-half overtime pay. The class action was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other stockbrokers who worked for Brill Securities in New York during the last six years. Defendants sought to defeat the class action by arguing that an arbitration agreement in stockbrokers' U4 forms precluded class actions. The Appellate Court rejected Defendants' argument in its entirety and held that the claims shall proceed as a class action, an enormous victory for the Plaintiffs. Attorney Michael Palmer, who argued the case on behalf of the Plaintiffs, stated, "We are pleased by the Court's decision which enforced the parties' agreement to arbitrate only those claims permitted by the FINRA rules. FINRA has consistently recognized that broker-dealers cannot compel stockbrokers to arbitrate claims which were filed as a class action. The Court recognized that a defendant cannot breach their own arbitration agreement to avoid class litigation." Adds attorney Matthew Kadushin, "This slams the door on broker-dealers, who are now without defense." A copy of the First Department's decision can be found here: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_01877.htm For more information, call Matthew Kadushin toll free (866) 348- 7394, e-mail him at matthew@jhllp.com or visit http://www.jhllp.com Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP currently represents stockbrokers in eleven class actions for unpaid wages and welcomes inquiries from commission-only stockbrokers and other victims of unpaid wages. CHARLES SCHWAB: In Dispute with Finra Over Arbitration Process -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Light, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that discount brokerage Charles Schwab and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or Finra, are in the midst of a dispute over whether investors be allowed to bring class-action lawsuits against brokerages. It could have wide implications for investors. When investors open brokerage accounts, they're generally required to agree not to sue the broker. Instead, they have to settle disputes through an arbitration process run by Finra, which is funded by the industry. Finra, however, doesn't have an arbitration process for class- action claims -- in which a large number of plaintiffs with similar complaints band together -- and says its rules prohibit brokerages from making customers agree to class-action waivers. Despite this, Schwab added a class-action waiver to its customer agreements in September. It cited an April U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed companies to limit class-action lawsuits with arbitration clauses. Gilbert Serota, the lawyer representing Schwab in the case, says that indicates that federal law also would override Finra's rules that Finra says forbid the waivers. A Finra spokeswoman declined to comment. Last month, Finra began a disciplinary proceeding to penalize Schwab for violating the rules, and in response, Schwab sued Finra in an attempt to get courts to determine that its waiver couldn't be barred by the regulator. The two sides are next scheduled to meet in U.S. district court in April. "If Schwab gets what it wants, it would deprive customers of the opportunity to bring any claims as a class," says Jill Gross, director of the Investor Rights Clinic at Pace Law School in White Plains, N.Y. Schwab officials, for their part, say class-action lawsuits benefit lawyers more than customers. Mr. Serota, Schwab's lawyer, says the company believes customers are better served bringing their claims individually through arbitration or through Schwab's internal dispute process. "It's much more efficient and cost-effective than a class action," he says. Schwab has been hit by class-action lawsuits before. Last month, customers filed a class-action suit against Schwab that alleges the company secretly recorded customer phone calls without their consent. Since last peaking at 7,137 in 2009, the number of new arbitration cases filed with Finra has tapered off. Investors filed about 4,700 cases in 2011, down almost 17% from 2010. In 2011, the arbitration process awarded damages to customers in about 44% of cases, according to Finra. Most arbitration cases brought to Finra involve damages that run into thousands of dollars, says Ryan Bakhtiari, president of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association. When damages are smaller, attorneys often pursue a class-action lawsuit to make it worth their time, he says. If a broker charged customers too wide a spread on trades, for example, a single customer's damages might be only a few dollars, but the total damages among all of its customers could run into millions of dollars, Mr. Bakhtiari says. Without the option to bring a class-action lawsuit, customers and attorneys would be unlikely to pursue small claims. "No one is going to hire a lawyer to litigate a $12 claim," he says. Changes in brokerage agreements are rare, which made Schwab's move surprising to many attorneys in the securities industry, says Ernest Badway, co-head of the securities industry group at Fox Rothschild, a Philadelphia law firm. "It's an agreement that's fairly standard across brokerages and doesn't change often," he says. If Schwab prevails in this case, Mr. Bakhtiari says, other brokerage firms might follow suit in introducing their own waivers, effectively making it impossible for customers to bring class-action suits against brokerages. "Other brokers are going to be paying close attention to this case," he says. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Faces SureWest Merger-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is facing two putative class action lawsuits challenging its proposed merger with SureWest Communications, according to the Company's March 5, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On February 5, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive agreement to acquire all the outstanding shares of SureWest Communications ("SureWest") for $23.00 per share in a cash and stock transaction with a total consideration valued at approximately $340.9 million, exclusive of debt, based on the Company's February 3, 2012 closing price. Two putative class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged SureWest shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger with SureWest in which the Company, WH Acquisition Corp. and WH Acquisition II Corp, SureWest and members of the SureWest board of directors have been named as defendants. Each of these actions was filed in the Superior Court of California, Placer County. The actions are called Needles v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed February 17, 2012, Case No. SCV0030665, and Errecart v. Oldham, et al., filed February 24, 2012, Case No. SCV0030703. The actions generally allege, among other things, that each member of the SureWest board of directors breached fiduciary duties to SureWest and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of SureWest to the Company for consideration that allegedly is unfair to the SureWest shareholders and agreeing to terms that allegedly unduly restrict other bidders from making a competing offer. The complaints also allege that the Company and SureWest aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the members of the SureWest board of directors. The shareholder actions seek equitable relief, including an order to the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms, as well as unspecified money damages. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and that the alleged damages are completely unfounded. The Company says it intends to defend against these claims vigorously. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Suit Over Underpaid Royalties Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Energy Partners LLC continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Oklahoma over alleged underpaid royalties, according to the Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On October 28, 2011, Jerry and Betty Wattenbarger and Patricia Webb, individually and as class representatives on behalf of similarly situated persons, filed a Class Action petition in the District Court of Nowata County, Oklahoma against the Company, CEP Mid-Continent, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, and Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., alleging Plaintiffs own oil, gas and mineral interests in lands and wells located in Nowata County, Oklahoma, subject to oil and gas leases owned and operated by Defendants and that Defendants have underpaid royalties due and owing on the true value received or that should have been received by Defendants for production from Plaintiffs' mineral interests. Plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, breach of implied covenant to market; breach of express and implied lease obligations; violation of statutory law; breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and of the duty to act as a reasonably prudent operator; breach of fiduciary duty; constructive fraud and failure to disclose facts surrounding deductions made from royalty payments. Plaintiffs seek certification of a statewide class of plaintiffs, specify that the class claims against the Company and its subsidiary relate to the proper payment for production occurring on or after February 1, 2007, and currently limit damage claims against all Defendants to no more than $75,000 with respect to each Plaintiff and no more than $5 million in the aggregate for the Plaintiffs and the individual putative class members, in each case exclusive of interest and costs, but inclusive of any attorneys' fees. On December 1, 2011, the case was removed by Defendants to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and on December 28, 2011, Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiff's petition. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA: May Face Suits Over Housing Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Villacorte, writing for Daily News, reports that the city of Lancaster, which is facing allegations of intimidating and driving out minorities in public housing, is now itself plotting class-action lawsuits against Los Angeles County, claiming its housing policies are racist. Mayor R. Rex Parris is "actively looking" for attorneys and expects to file two or more lawsuits within 30 to 60 days. "One would be on behalf of people who were denied Section 8 (federal rental subsidies) based upon de facto discrimination," he said. "The other would be on behalf of Section 8 recipients in the Antelope Valley who are not getting the health care that they need." Earlier this week, the city filed a complaint with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development against the county Housing Authority. The complaint questioned why blacks outnumbered Latinos 5:1 among Lancaster residents who received Section 8 vouchers from the Housing Authority in 2008. The complaint also charged that the Housing Authority encouraged its black Section 8 recipients to settle in Lancaster without disclosing the city's 18 percent unemployment rate. Mayor Parris said the county then failed to provide adequate health care services to those Section 8 recipients, causing higher mortality rates and shorter life spans for blacks, in particular. "They're sending people into the Antelope Valley knowing that a large number of them are going to die because they don't have the medical care they're going to need," he said. The city accused the county Housing Authority of "intentional racial steering of its Section 8 program recipients." But Emilio Salas, deputy executive director for the Housing Authority, dismissed the allegations as "completely without merit." "We issue vouchers to applicants who are on our waiting lists," he said. "When we issue that voucher, we never know where they're going to end up since applicants can choose to live anywhere." Mr. Salas said the agency would welcome a review by HUD, adding "it would only confirm what we already know." He also adamantly denied the Housing Authority encouraged Section 8 recipients to go to Lancaster. "Never ever do we promote one community over another, as that is against HUD regulations." Lancaster's plans for class-action lawsuits comes months after several Section 8 recipients sued the city, as well as Palmdale and Los Angeles County, of allegedly racist harassment and eviction. To settle the lawsuit, both Palmdale and Los Angeles County agreed to stop having sheriff's deputies participate in raids on the homes of Section 8 recipients. Lancaster alone vowed to fight back. A HUD and Department of Justice investigation are both pending. CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Unit Faces Another Class Suit in Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------------- Crestwood Midstream Partners LP's subsidiary is facing another putative class action lawsuit alleging its operations pollute the atmosphere, groundwater and soil, according to the Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In May 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, Ginardi v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al., was filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas against Frontier Gas Services, LLC, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, BHP Billiton Petroleum, Kinder Morgan Treating, LP, and Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC (which was served in August 2011) No 4:11-cv-0420 BRW. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' operations pollute the atmosphere, groundwater, and soil with allegedly harmful gases, chemicals, and compounds and the facilities create excessive noise levels constituting trespass, nuisance and annoyance ("Ginardi case"). In December 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, George Bartlett, et al, v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al including Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline, LLC, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, and Kinder Morgan Treating LP, was filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas, No 4: 11-cv-0910 BSM alleging the same causes as in the Ginardi case ("Bartlett case"). In each of the Ginardi and the Bartlett case, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages of loss of use and enjoyment of property, contamination of soil and ground water, air and atmosphere and seek future monitoring. The Company has filed answers in the Ginardi and Bartlett case denying any liability. The court has not certified either lawsuit as a class action. The Company says that while it cannot reasonably quantify its ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages or other remedial actions, neither the Ginardi nor the Bartlett cases have had, nor are they expected to have, a material impact on the Company's results of operation, cash flows or financial condition. The Company intends to vigorously defend against both claims and to mitigate any clams by pursuing any indemnification obligations to which it may be entitled with respect to the properties as well as any coverage from its insurance. DAVEY TREE: Unit Settled "Ely" Suit for $2.9-Mil. in January ------------------------------------------------------------ The Davey Tree Expert Company's subsidiary entered into a $2,900,000 settlement agreement in January 2012 to resolve a class action lawsuit commenced by Peter Ely et al., according to the Company's March 1, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Davey Tree Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert Company, was named as a defendant in Peter Ely et al. v. Davey Tree Surgery Company, et al., a purported class-action lawsuit in the State of California filed on July 15, 2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda. The plaintiffs alleged on behalf of themselves and a putative class that Davey Tree Surgery Company failed to comply with California law concerning off-duty meal periods and the required content of paycheck stubs. The plaintiffs alleged that they and the putative "meal periods" class were not provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-minute meal periods. In addition, plaintiffs claimed that because they were allegedly required to work during their meal breaks, Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law because they and the putative class members were not paid minimum wage for their alleged work during meal breaks. Plaintiffs also contended that Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law by not including the time that they and the putative "wage statement" class members worked during their meal periods, their hourly rates of pay and number of hours worked at each hourly rate on their paycheck stubs. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified both the "meal periods" class and the "wage statements" class; some individuals were members of both classes, while others were members of only one class (collectively, the "class members"). A trial was initially scheduled for January 30, 2012. The trial was rescheduled to March 26, 2012, pending results of a mediation process initiated in January 2012 with plaintiffs and Local Union 1245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the "Union"). As a result of the mediation, on January 6, 2012, Davey Tree Surgery Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs, counsel for the class members, and the Union representing the class members. The Settlement Agreement requires court approval of its terms, a process that could take several months to complete. In the event that the Court denies final approval of the Settlement Agreement with prejudice and both Davey Tree Surgery Company and the plaintiffs have exhausted all means to challenge that denial, the Settlement Agreement will be void in all respects and the litigation will continue. The Settlement Agreement provides for Davey Tree Surgery Company to pay a total sum of $2,900,000. DAVID STERN: June 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Brinkmann, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports that almost 800 former employees of foreclosure attorney David Stern will receive an average of about $450 apiece for claims that Mr. Stern failed to adequately warn them of impending layoffs in early 2011, according to a proposed class action lawsuit settlement. Mr. Stern was one of the nation's leading foreclosure attorneys. He and his companies processed thousands of foreclosures for major lenders in their Plantation offices. But lenders pulled the plug on his practice after he fell under investigation for allegedly falsifying foreclosure documents. Several employees filed a class action suit last year; a notice of settlement was originally filed in December, but the case was reopened to seek final approval. A fairness hearing before U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola is set for 2:00 p.m. on June 8. A $502,000 settlement fund would include a $15,000 fee for attorneys and other costs, leaving about $350,000 for employee plaintiffs in the class. The proposed settlement estimates that the payments will equal about 10 percent of employee wage claims. The wage claim amount is the total wages earned in a 60 calendar- day calendar period (43 workdays) based on wage or salary on the date of termination. The suit, which was certified as a class action in September, alleges that Mr. Stern violated federal labor laws and failed to warn employees of imminent layoffs. Mr. Stern and his affiliated business grew to be one of Florida's largest foreclosure practices. But the firm and related company DJSP Enterprises fell apart after the Attorney General's Office began investigating them for alleged "robo-signing" activities, including possible fabrication of documents. The investigation hit national news, where some articles dubbed Mr. Stern the "foreclosure king." Major lenders such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bank of America abandoned Mr. Stern, leading to the mass layoff of about 1,200 employees in February and March 2011. The suit charged that Mr. Stern's law firm and its publicly traded paperwork company, DJSP, did not follow the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requirement to give 60 days' warning, including wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k) contributions, continuation of health insurance coverage and other benefits that would have been paid or covered during the notice period. The named plaintiffs in the suit are Renae Mowat, Nikki Mack, Arklynn Rahming and Quenna Humphrey. GOV'T OF ALBERTA: May 4 Foster Care Suit Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Rassel, writing for The Calgary Herald, reports that a long-running class-action lawsuit suing the Alberta government on behalf of foster children is nearing another milestone on its long legal road. Public notices appeared across Alberta last week telling potential plaintiffs of an approaching May 4 deadline to opt out of the lawsuit. The suit is being launched on behalf of children taken into care by provincial authorities between July 1966 and Feb. 2008. One of the lawyers behind the action estimated as many as 20,000 people could be eligible to join. The suit isn't claiming abuse committed while children were in the care of provincial authorities. Rather, the lawsuit alleges provincial authorities were negligent for not pursuing civil damages or restitution on behalf of children who suffered sexual abuse or physical injury at the hands of others prior to being taken into care. "This lawsuit is for everybody who could have had a lawsuit or could have applied for victim-of-crime compensation," said Edmonton lawyer Robert Lee. The suit began with a statement of claim filed in 2004 by a 39- year-old woman who now lives in Calgary. She is one of three plaintiffs who now represent the class of victims, however large it may become. The upcoming deadline is to allow anyone who wants to sue the government as an individual to drop out of the class-action suit. GOV'T OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Coerced Adoptions ------------------------------------------------------------ Kathryn Blaze Carlson, writing for National Post, reports that the British Columbia government was on March 16 hit with a class- action lawsuit accusing the province of abduction, fraud, and coercion in connection with adoptions among unmarried women from the 1940s until the early 1990s. The lead plaintiff is today a fourth-year psychology student named Cassandra Armishaw, who became pregnant at age 17 in 1985 after being sexually assaulted in Penticton, B.C, according to the statement of claim. When she was in labor at Vancouver's Grace Hospital, she alleges a social worker entered the room and said "when you're done here I'm taking that baby," the claim says. "She was still delivering the baby, and tried not to push," it says. Ms. Armishaw alleges she was not immediately allowed to see, hold, or touch her baby girl. The lawsuit is the first in an expected series of similar class- actions planned against all the provinces Quebec westward, as well as in New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador. Tony Merchant, the prominent Saskatchewan lawyer heading the actions, said he expects to file in Ontario and Quebec next week. A spokesperson for the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development said it would be inappropriate to comment now that a suit has been filed. Earlier last week, Brian Cotton said the government is "not aware of any official policy that would have forced unwed mothers to give up their children for adoption in British Columbia." None of the claims have been proven in court. Since the National Post launched an investigation into coerced adoptions last weekend, dozens of mothers have emerged to say they were coerced or forced by social workers, medical staff, and churches into giving their child up for adoption because they were unmarried. Three former social workers, two in Alberta and one who worked in Manitoba, have come forward to corroborate some of the claims put forward by the mothers. The Salvation Army and the United Church have said they are reviewing their maternity homes' practices, and the Ontario NDP has urged the Dalton McGuinty government to "give serious consideration" to calls for a provincial inquiry. Among the mothers who have told their stories to the National Post, several said they experienced coercion in British Columbia. Sharon Pedersen said she was 20-years-old in 1964 when she was drugged and tied to her bed during labor and then shown four different babies through the nursery window at a hospital in Victoria. She ultimately signed adoption papers at the local children's aid society, she said, but not before social workers held a pen in her hand and threatened to call the police because she was screaming and throwing furniture in protest. Hanne Andersen said her B.C. hospital records say "Baby for Adoption" even though the teenage single mother had planned to keep the baby. Ms. Andersen, who became pregnant at age 15 in 1982, said nurses allowed her to hold her child just once. Tony Merchant, the prominent Saskatchewan lawyer heading the class-action lawsuit, said he expects to file in Ontario and Quebec this week. Ms. Armishaw could not be reached on March 16, but her statement of claim says she feared another sexual assault in Penticton and moved to Vancouver. There, she claims she contacted social services to see whether she could receive assistance, but she alleges she was told no assistance was available. The claim also says a social worker testified in court that Ms. Armishaw was not able to care for herself -- that Cassandra "did not eat nutritious food" and "thought other people were possessed by spirits -- and that the baby should be put up for adoption. The claim, filed to the B.C. Supreme Court on March 16, lists the "Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Attorney General" as the sole defendant. "The Defendant took away the right of the Class Members to make a free choice about whether to adopt their children," it says. The class captures unmarried women whose babies were "taken immediately following delivery and then placed for adoption," according to the claim, which seeks general and special damages for the lost opportunity to parent, medical treatment without consent, and mental distress. It says unmarried mothers were excluded from the regular maternity wards, and that adoption consents were executed immediately following birth, in contravention of the ten-day waiting period before a surrender can be executed. "I don't think there is any question there was a policy where, if a child was born outside of a marriage, that child was not to remain with the mother," said Mr. Merchant, whose firm secured a $2-billion settlement in the 2006 Indian Residential School class action. Mr. Merchant, who said upward of 200 women have so far signaled interest in class-actions across the country, said the suits will attempt to saddle the provinces with responsibility for the wrongdoings of church-run organizations because they were provincially funded agents. He said he hopes the case will be certified by a judge within six months, allowing the case to proceed. GREAT WOLF: Being Sold to Apollo for Too Little, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ David Raul as custodian for Pinchus E Raul Utma Ny, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Kimberly K. Schaefer, Joseph V. Vittoria, Elan Blutinger, Randy L. Churchey, Edward H. Rensi, Howard A. Silver, Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., Apollo Management VII, L.P., K-9 Holdings, Inc., and K-9 Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 7328- (Del. Ch. Ct., March 14, 2012) is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Great Wolf against the Company's Board of Directors for their breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to certain equity funds managed by Apollo. The Plaintiff alleges that the proposed acquisition of Great Wolf by Apollo is unfair to Great Wolf shareholders, does not offer them adequate consideration, was the result of an unfair and flawed sales process in which Apollo was favored over other interested parties, and is going to be effected through the dissemination of a materially false and misleading recommendation statement. The Plaintiff adds that the Board has breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction for grossly inadequate consideration. The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Great Wolf. Great Wolf, a Delaware corporation, is North America's largest family of indoor waterpark resorts, and, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, owns, licenses and operates its family resorts under the Great Wolf Lodge brand. Apollo is a Delaware limited partnership. Through its affiliates, Apollo is a global alternative investment manager with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Houston, London, Frankfurt, Luxembourg, Singapore, Mumbai and Hong Kong. K-9 Holdings is a Delaware corporation that was created for the purpose of effectuating the Proposed Transaction. K-9 Acquisition is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of K-9 Holdings that was created for the purpose of effectuating the Proposed Transaction. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com mar@rigrodskylong.com gs@rigrodskylong.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 E-mail: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com GREAT WOLF: Faces Another Suit Over Proposed Sale to Apollo ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott Ferguson, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., Kimberly K. Schaefer, Joseph V. Vittoria, Elan Blutinger, Randy L. Churchey, Edward H. Rensi, Howard A. Silver, K-9 Holdings, Inc., and K-9 Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 7329- (Del. Ch. Ct., March 15, 2012) is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Great Wolf against its Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Company's shareholders, and against K-9 Acquisition for aiding and abetting the Board's breaches, arising from the proposed sale of the Company to K-9. The Plaintiff contends that he and other members of the Class have been and will be damaged in that they will not receive their fair proportion of the value of the Company's assets and business, and will be prevented from obtaining fair and adequate consideration for their shares of Great Wolf common stock. The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Great Wolf. Great Wolf, a Delaware corporation, is North America's largest family of indoor waterpark resorts, and, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, owns, licenses and operates its family resorts under the Great Wolf Lodge brand. K-9 Holdings is a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of K-9 Investors, L.P. K-9 Investors is owned directly and indirectly by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its affiliates. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Great Wolf. K-9 Acquisition is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of K-9 Holdings that was created for the purpose of effectuating the Proposed Transaction. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 North Market Street, Suite 1401 Citizens Bank Center Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com - and - U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq. Joseph R. Beige, Esq. Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 E-mail: Ottensoser@bernlieb.com JBeige@bernlieb.com Seidman@bernlieb.com IMMERSION CORP: Consolidated IPO Litigation Has Concluded --------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated litigation over initial public offerings has concluded, according to Immersion Corporation's March 5, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company is involved in legal proceedings relating to a class action lawsuit filed on November 9, 2001, in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Immersion Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. Civ. 01-9975 (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.). The named defendants are the Company and three of its current or former officers or directors (the "Immersion Defendants"), and certain underwriters of its November 12, 1999 initial public offering ("IPO"). Subsequently, two of the individual defendants stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice. The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from the date of the Company's IPO through December 6, 2000. It alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the IPO did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for excess commissions to be paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. The complaint also appears to allege that false or misleading analyst reports were issued. The complaint does not claim any specific amount of damages. Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. In September 2008, all of the parties to the lawsuits reached a settlement, subject to documentation and approval of the District Court. Subsequently, an underwriter defendant filed for bankruptcy and other underwriter defendants were acquired. On April 2, 2009, final documentation evidencing the settlement was presented to the District Court for approval. On October 6, 2009, the District Court approved the settlement, and the Court subsequently entered a judgment of dismissal. Under the judgment, the Immersion Defendants are not required to contribute to the settlement. Several notices of appeal have been filed by putative class members challenging the settlement. Subsequently, the District Court determined that none of the objectors had standing to appeal. One of the putative objectors filed a notice of appeal of the determination as to him. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed the final objection on January 9, 2012, and the litigation has concluded. IMMERSION CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of a consolidated securities lawsuit commenced in California, according to Immersion Corporation's March 5, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion directors and officers. On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. Over the following five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed. (One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.) The securities class action complaints name the Company and certain current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements. The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May 2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly sustained by the purported class members. On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. Following the Company's restatement of its financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 9, 2010. Defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 15, 2010, and that motion was granted with leave to amend on March 11, 2011. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 29, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 1, 2011. On December 16, 2011, the motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and on December 19, 2011, judgment was entered in favor of defendants. On January 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. KOSMOS ENERGY: Faces IPO-Related Securities Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------------------- Kosmos Energy Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit in Texas arising from its initial public offering, according to the Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On January 10, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, against Kosmos Energy Ltd., all of its directors, certain officers of the Company, Warburg Pincus LLC, Blackstone Capital Partners and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants made materially false statements and omissions in the documents related to the IPO concerning anticipated gross oil production from the Jubilee Field and that the defendants failed to disclose that several wells were not producing as expected due to design defects that will purportedly cost hundreds of millions of dollars to remediate and will purportedly keep such wells from producing as expected for several years. The plaintiff seeks to certify the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit. The Company believes that these claims are without merit. The Company is cooperating with its directors and officers liability insurance carrier regarding the vigorous defense of the lawsuit. The Company currently believes that the potential amount of losses resulting from this lawsuit in the future, if any, will not exceed the policy limits of its directors' and officers' insurance. The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuit and do not believe it will have a material adverse effect on its business. However, if the Company is unsuccessful in this litigation and any loss exceeds its available insurance, this could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations. LIFEWAY FOODS: Misleads Bio Kefir & ProBugs Consumers, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- John C. Phelan, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lifeway Foods, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-01309 (N.D. Calif., March 15, 2012) accuses Lifeway of making false and misleading statements in its advertising and packaging of its products, including Bio Kefir Black Cherry Heart Healthy Cultured Milk and ProBugs-Strawnana Split. According to Lifeway's uniform and consistent claims, use of the Products fight free radical damage, ward off carcinogens and provide cardiovascular support, and keep your immune system healthy, Mr. Phelan relates. However, he contends, these claims are false, and there is no known clinical study that adequately supports Lifeway's claims. Mr. Phelan is a resident San Francisco, California, and a purchaser of the Products. Lifeway manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes and sells the beverages known as Bio Kefir Black Cherry Heart Healthy Cultured Milk and ProBugs, which comes in various flavors, including Strawnana Split. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 436-6437 Facsimile: (415) 692-6607 E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com METROPOLITAN HEALTH: Court Okays Merger-Related Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida, gave final approval to Metropolitan Health Networks, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On October 4, 2011, the Company completed its acquisition of Continucare. The acquisition was structured as a merger of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, CAB Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), with and into Continucare (the "Merger") in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated June 26, 2011. As a result of the Merger, Continucare became the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary effective October 4, 2011. The business and results of Continucare are reflected in the Company's financial results from the date of acquisition. On July 1, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, by Kathryn Karnell, Trustee and the Aaron and Kathryn Karnell Revocable Trust U/A Dtd 4/9/09 against Continucare, the members of the Continucare Board, individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Kathryn Karnell Trustee, etc. v. Continucare Corporation et al., No. 11-20538 CA40). Also on July 1, 2011, a second putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami- Dade County, Florida, by Steven L. Fuller against Continucare, the members of the Continucare Board, individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Steven L. Fuller v. Richard C. Pfenniger et al., No. 11-20537 GA04). On July 6, 2011, a third putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, by Hilary Kramer against Continucare, the members of the Continucare Board, individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Hilary Kramer v. Richard C. Pfenniger Jr. et al., No. 11-20925 CA20). On July 12, 2011, a fourth putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami- Dade County, Florida, by Jamie Suprina against Continucare, the members of the Continucare board of directors, individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Jamie Suprina v. Continucare Corporation et al., No. 11-21522 CA15). On July 22, 2011, a fifth putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, by Kojo Acquaah against Continucare, the members of the Continucare board of directors, individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled Kojo Acquaah v. Continucare Corporation et al., No. 11-22833 CA40). Also on July 22, 2011, a sixth putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, by David DeYoung against Continucare, the members of the Continucare board of directors, individually, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub (styled David DeYoung v. Continucare Corporation et al., No. 11-22837 CA40). The plaintiffs in the Fuller, Karnell, and Acquaah and DeYoung actions filed motions seeking appointment of lead counsel and to expedite discovery and the proceedings. The complaints in each of these lawsuits alleges a claim against the members of the Continucare Board for breach of fiduciary duty and a claim against Continucare, Metropolitan, and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the individual defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The amended complaints in Karnell, Suprina and Fuller and the complaints in Acquaah and DeYoung also alleged that the disclosure contained in the Proxy Statement or Registration Statement on Form S-4 originally filed by the Company on July 11, 2011, regarding the pending Merger was inadequate. All of the complaints sought to enjoin the now completed transaction between Continucare and Metropolitan, as well as attorneys' fees. The Acquaah and DeYoung complaints also sought rescission. The Fuller, Kramer, and Suprina lawsuits also sought rescission and money damages. On July 28, 2011, the Court entered an order consolidating all six actions arising from the Metropolitan Health/Continucare proposed transaction (the "Consolidated Action") appointed Fuller as Lead Plaintiff and the law firm of Levi & Korinsky LLP as Plaintiffs Lead Counsel and Julie Vinale, Esq. as Liaison Counsel. Following the consolidation and Lead Plaintiff/Lead Counsel orders the parties engaged in limited expedited discovery, including the production of certain documents from Continucare and the depositions of Plaintiff Fuller and Defendants Richard C. Pfenniger and Phillip Frost. The parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") on August 12, 2011, with Plaintiff's Lead Counsel regarding the settlement of the Consolidated Action. In connection with the settlement, Continucare agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its shareholders, which were contained in a Form 8- K filed with the SEC on August 12, 2011. Subject to the completion of certain confirmatory discovery by Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, the MOU contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement. The confirmatory discovery has been completed and the parties entered a stipulation of settlement on November 21, 2011. On November 29, 2011, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, conditionally certifying a settlement class and ordering that notice be provided to Continucare shareholders. On February 24, 2012, the court conducted a final settlement hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement and finally approved the settlement. The court entered a Final Judgment and Order that resolved and dismissed with prejudice all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the Consolidated Action, including all claims relating to the merger transaction, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith. In addition, the court entered an award of attorneys' fees and expenses of $350,000 to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel to be paid by Continucare or its successor. The Company estimates that it will pay $100,000 of this amount. Continucare, the director defendants, and Metropolitan vigorously deny all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the lawsuits, and specifically deny that supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. However, solely to avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and the related transactions and to minimize the expense of defending the lawsuits, Continucare, its directors, and Metropolitan agreed to the settlement. NOVATEL WIRELESS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Novatel Wireless, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On September 15, 2008, and September 18, 2008, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008. On December 11, 2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal.). In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between February 27, 2007, and November 10, 2008. The consolidated complaint names the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements during the relevant time period regarding the strength of its products and market share, its financial results and its internal controls. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and costs. The court has denied defendants' motions to dismiss. In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class of purchasers of Company common stock between February 27, 2007, and September 15, 2008. On February 14, 2011, following extensive discovery, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims. A trial date was set for May 10, 2011. On March 15, 2011, the case was reassigned to a new district judge, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia. Following the reassignment, the court vacated the trial date pending the court's consideration of dispositive motions. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011. On November 23, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary judgment. A new trial date has not yet been set. The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously. At this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this litigation. The Company has not recorded any significant accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter based on its belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be estimated at this time. OLIVE GARDEN: Faces Wage Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Olive Garden (Darden Restaurants) stiffs workers for overtime and regular time and takes illegal deductions from paychecks, a worker claims in a Superior Court class action. A copy of the Complaint in Romo, et al. v. GMRI, Inc. d/b/a Olive Garden, et al., Case No. RIC1203891 (Calif. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/OliveGarden.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. Cory Lee, Esq. Joshua Carlon, Esq. INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC 1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-5637 E-mail: mschimmel@initiativelegal.com corylee@initiativelegal.com jcarlon@initiativelegal.com PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Faces Three Securities Suits in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. is facing three class action lawsuits in California alleging violations of securities laws, according to the Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On October 21, 2011, and October 24, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named in two identical purported class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo (Young v. Pacific Biosciences, et al. Case No. CIV509210 and Sandnas v. Pacific Biosciences, et al., Case No. CIV 509259). Plaintiffs have brought claims alleging violation of several provisions of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's August 16, 2010 registration statement (as amended, effective as of October 26, 2010) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Pacific Biosciences stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering and were damaged thereby. The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's IPO, arising out of alleged omissions and misrepresentations in the Company's August 16, 2010 registration statement (as amended, effective as of October 26, 2010). The complaints seek, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission, and attorney's fees and costs. On December 21, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named in a purported class action lawsuit filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Primo v. Pacific Biosciences et al., No. 4:11-CV-06599 (CW)), on behalf of all persons or entities who bought Pacific Biosciences stock between October 27, 2010, and September 20, 2011. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the Company and/or its employees during the class period. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that the allegations in each of these pending actions are without merit and intends to vigorously contest the actions. However, the Company says there can be no assurance that it will be successful in its defense. RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on an appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for the Stock Offering. An additional purported securities class action lawsuit containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on February 20, 2009. By order of the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single action. On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (formerly Coughlin Stoia) as lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 24, 2009. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2009. On December 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on January 27, 2010. The lawsuit alleged violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company related to the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its product candidate fostamatinib (then known as R788). The plaintiff sought damages, including rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers in the Stock Offering, an award of their costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period between December 13, 2007, and February 9, 2009, including purchasers in the Stock Offering. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on February 16, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the Court issued an order granting the Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. On September 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that it will not amend its complaint and requested that the Court enter a final judgment. On October 28, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment requesting entry of such judgment in favor of the defendants. On November 1, 2010, judgment was entered dismissing the action. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2010, to the Circuit Court appealing the district court's order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiff filed its opening brief on February 23, 2011. The Company filed its opposition brief on April 8, 2011. On May 9, 2011, the plaintiff filed its reply brief. On February 17, 2012, the Circuit Court heard oral arguments on plaintiff's appeal. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual costs to be incurred relating to the lawsuit will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of the litigation is necessarily uncertain, and it could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of this lawsuit, and the Company may not prevail. Monitoring and defending against legal actions is time-consuming for the Company's management and detracts from its ability to fully focus its internal resources on its business activities. In addition, the Company may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with the litigation. The Company is not currently able to estimate the possible cost to it from this matter, and it cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve this matter or the possible amount of any damages that the Company may be required to pay. The Company has not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to this lawsuit. It is possible that the Company could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages. A decision adverse to the Company's interests on this action could result in the payment of substantial damages, or possibly fines, and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's cash flows, results of operations and financial position. In addition, the uncertainty of the currently pending litigation could lead to increased volatility in the Company's stock price. ROADRUNNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Ariz. --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Roadrunner Communications misclassifies installation and repair technicians as independent contractors to stiff them for overtime. A copy of the Complaint in Baughman, et al. v. Roadrunner Communications, LLC, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00565 (D. Ariz.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/Employ.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle R. Matheson, Esq. Darrel S. Jackson, Esq. Matthew E. Walls, Esq. MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C. 15300 N. 90th Street, Suite 550 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Telephone: (480) 889-8951 E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com djackson@mathesonlegal.com mwalls@mathesonlegal.com RON WILSON: Attorney to Launch Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Ellis, writing for Anderson Independent Mail, reports that attorney Candy Kern-Fuller said she lost money that she invested with Ron Wilson and she is trying to start a class-action lawsuit against the former county council member. Mr. Wilson is the subject of two separate but related criminal investigations into an alleged multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme, according to a spokesman for the South Carolina Attorney General's Office. The spokesman, Mark Plowden, confirmed on March 16 that federal officials and state authorities are working "hand-in-hand" on investigating Mr. Wilson, alongside the South Carolina Securities Division. Mr. Wilson is accused of using his Atlantic Bullion & Coin business in Easley to take money from clients who thought they were buying silver while little, if any, silver was ever purchased for them, according to a complaint from the attorney general's office. He was given about $71 million by investors between 2009 and 2012, most for silver or silver investments, according to the complaint, which does not indicate how much of that is alleged to be fraudulent. Mr. Wilson has not been arrested or charged with a crime, officials said on March 16. He has not been available for comment. The state documents do not mention any attorney for Mr. Wilson and it is not clear if he has retained a lawyer since the complaint was made public on March 12. Ms. Kern-Fuller said she invested about $10,000 with Mr. Wilson and had removed the principal investment but lost out on the purported earnings. "I am disappointed," she said. "But others had it much worse." She said friends who also invested with Mr. Wilson have been flooding her law office, Upstate Law Group, with questions. By March 16 at least 80 investors were interested in pursuing a civil lawsuit against Mr. Wilson, Ms. Kern-Fuller said. The investors were scheduled to meet with her on March 19. Mr. Kern-Fuller said that because she invested with Wilson, she was requesting an ethics ruling on whether she could represent plaintiffs but in either case she would want an attorney specializing in class-action lawsuits to be on board. The 80-some investors had put as little as $4,000 up to as much as $1.2 million in Mr. Wilson's trust, Ms. Kern-Fuller said. Ms. Kern-Fuller said one woman had recently met Mr. Wilson and handed him more than $65,000 in cash. Several of Mr. Wilson's clients have told the Independent Mail that he had meetings in Easley where he gave sales pitches about the investments. State Rep. Joshua Putnam, whose district includes Mr. Wilson's business, said in a statement on March 16 that he "felt a deep sense of responsibility for what occurred, disappointment in the ethics of Ron Wilson and was compelled to see that South Carolinians never be taken advantage of again." Mr. Putnam said he is preparing legislation that would address problems with cease and desist letters, such as the one Mr. Wilson signed, and fraudulent business practices. He said the legislation would be released Thursday, along with further details. Mr. Putnam's statement does not mention that Ron Wilson was a major donor to the state representative's 2011 campaign, giving $1,000 on June 29. Mr. Putnam did not respond to a March 16 request to comment on Mr. Wilson's donation. Mr. Wilson met with state securities investigators in February. The complaint alleges that he lied or misled investigators during that meeting about both the nature of his business and the amount of silver he had stored. Mr. Wilson said in the February meeting that he had between $16.9 million and $20 million worth of silver stored in a Delaware depository. The depository had no record of Mr. Wilson, his business or the silver, the complaint alleges. The complaint was filed on March 12 in Richland County. U.S. Secret Service agents raided Mr. Wilson's Easley business on March 15 and in the parking lot agent Thomas Griffin said they intended to remove computers, files and silver. Mr. Griffin, the resident agent in charge of the Secret Service's Greenville office, declined to confirm on March 16 what had been removed. He said search warrants for Atlantic Bullion & Coin and the adjacent, yet-to-open Live Oak Farms business had been sealed. The two businesses are in an Easley strip mall, Mr. Wilson kept his Land Rover in a garage attached to the Live Oaks Farms, which also is the name of a business run by his daughter, according to Web sites for company. The complaint accuses Mr. Wilson of violating five sections of the State Securities Act. It suggests a penalty of $10,000 for Mr. Wilson and $10,000 for his business for each individual violation. Mr. Wilson agreed in a 1996 document that he would cease and desist selling silver securities. Mr. Plowden said that Mr. Wilson restructured his business with the guise that he was selling commodities, which is why investigators did not discover anything amiss for so many years. A commodity business, with little oversight, would generally give customers the physical silver while a securities business would generally sell a certificate or other form of silver investment. Mr. Wilson sold securities without the required licenses or oversight, the recent complaint alleges. Mr. Wilson served as an Anderson County Council member from 2008 to 2010. He was the national commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans from 2002 to 2004. He unsuccessfully ran for the state Senate in 2004 and served as a South Carolina Board of Education member from 2005 to 2007. SANOFI: Awaits Mandate Dismissing Santa Clara Suit vs. Aventis -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi is awaiting a mandate ordering the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced by the County of Santa Clara, California, against a subsidiary, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On August 18, 2005, the County of Santa Clara, California, filed a lawsuit against Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and fourteen other pharmaceutical companies originally in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, alleging that the defendants had overcharged Public Health Service entities for their pharmaceutical products in breach of pharmaceutical pricing agreements between the defendants and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Subsequently, the case was removed to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California. In May 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice. All proceedings in the District Court were stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court concerning whether plaintiffs have a private right of action. On March 29, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that plaintiffs do not have a private right of action, ruling in favor of Aventis Pharmaceuticals and fourteen other defendants, and restoring an order of dismissal that previously had been entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Accordingly, the District Court is expected to receive, in due course, a mandate ordering it to dismiss this case. SANOFI: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi is awaiting a court decision on a motion for class certification filed in a purported securities class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In November 2007, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Sanofi shares. The complaint charged Sanofi and certain of its current and former officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleged that defendants' statements regarding rimonabant (a product withdrawn from the market, formerly registered and marketed under the trademark Acomplia(R) in Europe and Zimulti(R) in the US) were materially false and misleading when made because defendants allegedly concealed data concerning certain alleged secondary effects of rimonabant, in particular, suicidality in patients suffering from depression. In September 2009, the motion was dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. On July 27, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider and authorized plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint. In November 2010, the District Court heard arguments on Sanofi's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. By Order dated March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a number of individual defendants, however, denied Sanofi's request to dismiss the Company, as well as one of its current officers and one of its former officers. On November 11, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Sanofi says a reliable measure of potential liabilities arising from this purported class action is not possible at this stage of the litigation. SANOFI: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Merial Over Heartgard Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit commenced against its subsidiary alleging false and misleading advertising of Heartgard(R) products, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On August 31, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company's subsidiary, Merial Limited, alleging that Merial engaged in false and misleading advertising of Heartgard(R) and Heartgard(R) Plus by claiming 100% efficacy in the prevention of heartworm disease, as well as the prevention of zoonotic diseases. Plaintiffs also request punitive damages and a permanent injunction with respect to the alleged advertising. The proceedings are ongoing and the class has not been certified yet. The Company says a reliable measure of potential liabilities arising from this putative class action is not possible at this stage of the litigation. SANOFI: Settlement of AWP Suits vs. Units Gets Final OK in Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- A global settlement in a litigation over average wholesale prices involving Sanofi's subsidiaries was given final approval in December 2011, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. (API) is a defendant in several U.S. lawsuits seeking damages on behalf of multiple putative classes of individuals and entities that allegedly overpaid for certain pharmaceuticals as a result of the Average Wholesale Prices (AWP) pricing which were used to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement levels. Aventis Behring and Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc. were also defendants in some of these cases. These lawsuits allege violations of various statutes, including state unfair trade, unfair competition, consumer protection and false claim statutes. A group of eleven defendants, including Sanofi defendants, reached a tentative global settlement of the claims of the insurers and consumers, for a total of $125 million. The defendants' respective shares of the settlement amount are confidential. This settlement was granted preliminary approval by the U.S. District Court in Boston in early July 2008. In December 2011, the Court granted the settlement final approval. Once any objections are resolved, this will resolve all class action lawsuits of the U.S. District Court in Boston. Sanofi says its share of the global settlement is fully covered by existing reserves. SANOFI: Unit Faces 10 Class Suits Over Frontline Advertisement -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi's subsidiary is facing 10 putative class action lawsuits alleging false advertising of Frontline(R) and other products, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. From October 2011 through January 2012, ten putative class actions were filed against Merial Limited in various U.S. federal courts, each alleging that the plaintiffs sustained damages after purchasing defendants' products (Merial's Frontline(R) and/or Certifect(R) brands and Bayer's Advantage(R) and Advantix(R) brands) for their pets' flea problems. These actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated proceedings in multi-district litigation. The complaints seek injunctive relief and contain counts for violations of consumer protection or deceptive trade practices acts, false advertising, breach of implied and express warranty and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Four of the complaints seek $32 billion in damages, two complaints seek greater than $4 billion in damages, and the remaining four complaints seek damages in excess of $5 million, which is merely the jurisdictional threshold. The proceedings are ongoing and no class has been certified. The Company says a reliable measure of potential liabilities arising from this putative class action litigation is currently not possible. SANOFI: Unit Settled DDAVP Direct Purchasers' Claims in August -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi's subsidiary agreed in August 2011 to resolve for $3.5 million the claims made by direct purchaser plaintiffs in antitrust class action lawsuits over DDAVP(R) tablet, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Subsequent to the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in February 2005 holding the patent rights at issue in the DDAVP(R) tablet litigation to be unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct, eight putative class actions have been filed claiming injury as a result of Ferring B.V. and Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s alleged scheme to monopolize the market for DDAVP(R) tablets in violation of the Sherman Act and the antitrust and deceptive trade practices statutes of several states. On November 6, 2006, the District Court dismissed these claims. Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal of the decision to dismiss was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2008. By Order dated October 16, 2009, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case back to the District Court. Petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied. In August 2011, Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Ferring reached an agreement with direct purchaser plaintiffs resolving their claims. Aventis Pharmaceuticals agreed to resolve these claims for $3.5 million. SANTARUS INC: Settled Wage and Hour Class Suit Last Month --------------------------------------------------------- Santarus, Inc., settled last month a wage and hour class action lawsuit, according to its March 5, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In December 2010, a complaint styled as a putative class action was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a person employed at the time by the Company as a sales representative and on behalf of a class of similarly situated current and former employees. The complaint sought damages for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law Section 650 et seq. and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, including failure to pay for overtime work. The complaint sought an unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other damages. The Company denied all claims asserted in the complaint, and the case was never certified as a class action. In February 2012, the Company settled this matter, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice was entered by the court in March 2012. Over the last several years, similar class action lawsuits have been filed against many other pharmaceutical companies alleging that the companies' sales representatives have been misclassified as exempt employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state laws. The issue of whether certain pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt under federal law's outside sales exemption is currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Santarus, Inc. -- http://santarus.com/-- is a specialty biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing and commercializing proprietary products that address the needs of patients treated by physician specialists. SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Faces Overtime Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Shan Li, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a subcontractor for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is being sued in a class- action lawsuit by employees who allege that the company routinely avoided paying its workers overtime. Employees claim that Schneider Logistics Transloading & Distribution Inc., which operates warehouses around the country, required workers at three Mira Loma warehouses to sign waivers giving up their rights to overtime premiums. Filed in the California Central District Court, the suit alleged that Schneider initially made a deal in 2008 to give employees 40- hour workweeks (with four 10-hour days) in return for workers giving up their right to overtime premiums when working more than eight hours a day. This "alternative workweek" schedule is legal as long as both sides agree and comply. However, Schneider failed to provide employees with regular schedules, the suit alleges, and assigned erratic hours that swerved from 20 hours one week to 100 hours the next. The company was therefore obligated to pay overtime premiums for work days that exceed eight hours, the suit said. Theresa M. Traber, a partner at the law firm representing the workers, said that the class-action lawsuit could affect 120 to 150 Schneider employees. "This is another case that illustrates the oppressive employment practices that exist throughout the warehousing industry in the Inland Empire," Ms. Traber said, "and in particular the pressure brought to bear by large retailers like Wal-Mart to push down prices of transporting goods so people at the bottom of totem . . . are deprived of wages they are entitled to under the law." Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman said the retail giant held all subcontractors "to high standards" and expects them to "comply with all applicable laws." "From our standpoint, it is never acceptable for anyone doing work for us to violate the law," Mr. Fogleman wrote in an e-mail. SERVICEMASTER CO: "Rudd" Suit Deal to Be Implemented in 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------ The settlement of a class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of The ServiceMaster Company will be implemented during the first two quarters of 2012, according to the Company's March 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In the ordinary course of conducting business activities, the Company and its subsidiaries become involved in judicial, administrative and regulatory proceedings involving both private parties and governmental authorities. These proceedings include, on an individual, collective, representative and class action basis, regulatory, insured and uninsured employment, general and commercial liability, wage and hour and environmental proceedings. The Company has entered into settlement agreements in certain cases, including with respect to putative collective and class actions, which are subject to court approval. As previously reported, American Home Shield Corporation was sued in a putative class action on May 26, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by Abigail Rudd, et al., and is alleged to have violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act in connection with certain payments made to real estate agencies. On December 8, 2011, the court granted final approval of a settlement to resolve this matter. The settlement will be implemented during the first two quarters of 2012, and the settlement is not expected to have a material effect on the Company's reputation, business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. If one or more of the Company's settlements are not finally approved, the Company says it could have additional or different exposure, which could be material. At this time, the Company does not expect any of these proceedings to have a material effect on its reputation, business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows; however, the Company can give no assurance that the results of any such proceedings will not materially affect its reputation, business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows. SILICON IMAGE: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Now Concluded ---------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action lawsuit over Silicon Image, Inc.'s initial public offering is now concluded, according to the Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On December 7, 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants along with the Company's underwriters in a securities class action lawsuit, captioned "Gonzalez v. Silicon Image, Inc." The lawsuit alleges that the defendants participated in a scheme to inflate the price of the Company's stock in the Company's initial public offering and in the aftermarket through a series of misstatements and omissions associated with the offering. The lawsuit is one of several hundred similar cases pending in the Southern District of New York that have been consolidated by the Court. In February 2003, the District Court issued an order denying a motion to dismiss by all defendants on common issues of law. In July 2003, the Company, along with over 300 other issuers named as defendants, agreed to a settlement of this litigation with plaintiffs. While the parties' request for court approval of the settlement was pending, in December 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's determination that six focus cases could be certified as a class action. In April 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that the District Court might certify a more limited class. At a June 26, 2007 status conference, the Court terminated the proposed settlement as stipulated among the parties. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 14, 2007. On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the six focus cases. The class certification motion is not expected to be resolved until after April 2008. On November 13, 2007, defendants in the six focus cases filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the District Court denied in March 2008. Plaintiffs, the issuer defendants (including the Company), the underwriter defendants, and the insurance carriers for the defendants, have engaged in mediation and settlement negotiations. The parties have reached a settlement agreement, which was submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval on April 2, 2009. As part of this settlement, the Company's insurance carrier has agreed to assume the Company's entire payment obligation under the terms of the settlement. On June 10, 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement. After September 10, 2009 hearing, the District Court gave final approval to the settlement on October 5, 2009, Several objectors have filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's October 5, 2009 order approving the settlement. All but two of the objectors withdrew their appeals, and Plaintiff moved to dismiss the remaining appeals, one for violation of the Second Circuit's rules and one for lack of standing. On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit granted the motion to dismiss one objector's appeal for violations of the Court's rules and remanded the other appeal to the District Court to determine whether objector Hayes was a class member. On August 25, 2011, the District Court issued its decision determining that Hayes was not a class member. On September 30, 2011, objector Hayes filed a notice of appeal from the District Court's decision. On January 9, 2012, objector Hayes dismissed his appeal with prejudice. No other appeals are pending, the order approving the settlement is final, and the matter is now concluded. SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Class Action Complaint Amended ------------------------------------------------ T.S. Last, writing for DChieftain.com, reports that attorneys representing member-owners of Socorro Electric Cooperative filed an amended countersuit against the co-op in 13th Judicial District Court in Los Lunas on March 12. The amended version retains many of the same charges of breach of fiduciary duty by members of the co-op's board of trustees and the former general manager, but differs from the original complaint by naming different parties to the lawsuit. The initial cross claim, filed in August 2010 in response to Socorro Electric's lawsuit against its members, named current and former co-op officials individually as defendants. This one lists Socorro Electric Cooperative, Inc. as the cross claim defendant. In addition, Carol Auffrey of Quemado and Herbert Myers of Socorro are named as cross claim plaintiffs and representatives of the class in the countersuit, which asks for class action certification. They replace Charlie Wagner, a member of the board of trustees and a leader in the movement to reform the co-op. The countersuit came in response to a lawsuit Socorro Electric filed against all of its approximately 10,000 member-owners in June 2010 in an effort to block new bylaws that require it to operate with increased transparency. Though the co-op lost the lawsuit, Judge Albert J. Mitchell Jr. allowed the case to continue to consider the merits of the countersuit. He has yet to decide whether he'll accept it or certify the class, but opened the case up to discovery to assist him with the decision. A status hearing was scheduled for March 14 in district court in Los Lunas, but an aide in Judge Mitchell's office said on March 16 that hearing would be postponed due to recent filings. Unraveling Knots If the amended version is accepted by the judge, it could potentially untie some snags created by the original countersuit. Mr. Wagner, who has been excused from recent executive sessions during co-op board meetings because he was a party in a case against his colleagues, appears to be in the same boat with the rest of them in the amended complaint. It could also remove a stumbling block pertaining to whether Socorro Electric's insurance carrier is able to provide coverage to defend the case. Co-op attorneys have said Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange has interpreted the countersuit as a dispute between trustees, because of Mr. Wagner's involvement, and such disagreements are an exception to providing coverage. The amended countersuit includes many of the same charges as the first version. It claims: -- the co-op long maintained a system of unequal and improper voting districts; -- patronage capital was withheld from members at times when they should have received payments; -- members of the board of trustees received excessive amounts of compensation; -- board members breached their fiduciary duty in numerous ways, including with regard to contractual obligations to co-op members and reporting financial and accounting records. A copy of bylaws Socorro Electric was operating under prior to Judge Mitchell's order to update them last year is included as an exhibit. Requesting Records In support of its argument that trustees received excessive compensation, the amended countersuit cites the amount of compensation received by several board members, as reported by the co-op on IRS 990 forms. "On information and belief, compensation received by the board of trustees of the SEC, including former trustees and officers, are many multiples of the compensation paid other similar persons working in similar positions for similar organizations," the complaint reads. It goes on to claim "The SEC's conduct in failing to report or reporting inaccurate information to the IRS constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty to the cross-claim plaintiffs and to the class." The complaint states that members were not notified of patronage capital -- money members of the private, non-profit corporation accrue over time when the operation is profitable -- contrary to the bylaws and Rural Electric Cooperative Act. The filing seeks injunctive relief from the judge to realign voting districts: "Cross-claim plaintiffs and the class request that the court enter an order that provides for and requires the formation and implementation of new, revised trustees' election districts in a manner the court deems practicable in accordance with the spirit of 'one man, one vote.'" A redistricting plan will be up for vote by the co-op's membership at the annual meeting on April 14. Not Immune The complaint also asks for the judge to order the co-op to provide accounting records for the past 10 years and to appoint an independent accounting firm to review them. While individual trustees and former co-op officials are no longer specifically named in the amended complaint, the revised version still asks that they be held accountable and be disgorged for all expenses and compensation deemed excessive. The complaint asks the judge to "Enter judgment that SEC is liable for exemplary damages based on malice, willful, reckless or wanton behavior, behavior or acts or omissions done in bad faith by the SEC or the board of trustees in an amount sufficient to punish SEC and to deter similar conduct in the future." Members would be entitled to damages in the amount of patronage capital that the complaint claims should have been retired and paid to them during the relevant time period, and attorneys representing members would be awarded fees. The amended complaint was filed by William "Bill" Ikard of the Ikard Wynne law firm of Austin, Texas, which in 2009 helped win a class action settlement against Pedernales Electric Cooperative that resulted in a $23 million being returned to members in the form of patronage capital. Ikard Wynne has been working in concert with the Deschamps & Kortemeier law firm of Socorro, attorneys for Auffrey and Myers. SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Awaits OK of Consolidated Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Sonic Automotive, Inc. is awaiting court approval of an agreement reached in January 2012 to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit, according to the Company's March 5, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and several of its dealership subsidiaries that purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs and make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner. One of these private civil actions was filed on November 15, 2004, in South Carolina state court, York County Court of Common Pleas, against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and some of Sonic's South Carolina subsidiaries. The plaintiffs in that lawsuit were Misty J. Owens, James B. Wright, Vincent J. Astey and Joseph Lee Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class. The group of plaintiffs' attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the South Carolina lawsuit also filed another private civil class action lawsuit against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries on February 14, 2005, in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court, which similarly sought certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs and alleged that certain products sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner. The plaintiffs in this North Carolina lawsuit were Robert Price, Carolyn Price, Marcus Cappelletti and Kelly Cappelletti, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class. The South Carolina state court action and the North Carolina state court action were subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. On November 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action including all of the states in which Sonic operates dealerships except Florida. Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. The parties have briefed and argued the issue of class certification. On July 19, 2010, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on Class Certification, certifying a class which includes all customers who, on or after November 15, 2000, purchased or leased from a Sonic dealership a vehicle with the Etch product as part of the transaction, but not including customers who purchased or leased such vehicles from a Sonic dealership in Florida. The Partial Final Award on Class Certification is not a final decision on the merits of the action. The merits of Claimants' assertions and potential damages would still have to be proven through the remainder of the arbitration. The Arbitrator stayed the Arbitration for thirty days to allow either party to petition a court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award. On July 22, 2010, the plaintiffs in this consolidated arbitration filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on Class Certification in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court. On August 17, 2010, Sonic removed this North Carolina state court action to federal court, and simultaneously filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on Class Certification, with both filings made in the United Stated District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On August 12, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued an Order granting Sonic's Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award on Class Certification and denied Claimant's Motion to Dismiss the same. Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 12, 2011. The federal court's stay of the arbitration proceeding remains in force. At a mediation held January 16, 2012, Sonic reached an agreement with the Claimants to settle this ongoing dispute in its entirety. This agreement is subject to formal documentation and court approval. In the event that such formal documentation is completed and court approval is received, Sonic says such a settlement would not have a material adverse effect on Sonic's future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Sonic is involved, and expects to continue to be involved, in numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business, including regulatory investigations and private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a potential class or for which a class has been certified. Although Sonic vigorously defends itself in all legal and administrative proceedings, the outcomes of pending and future proceedings arising out of the conduct of Sonic's business, including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits, contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on Sonic's business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects. Included in other accrued liabilities at December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, was approximately $7.3 million and $9.1 million, respectively, in reserves that Sonic has provided for pending proceedings. Except as reflected in such reserves, Sonic is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, or a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, for pending proceedings. SUNRISE SENIOR: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Purnell" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County, denied a motion for class certification in the lawsuit commenced by LaShone Purnell, according to Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.'s March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On May 14, 2010, Plaintiff LaShone Purnell filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County, against Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., captioned LaShone Purnell as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 30-2010-00372725 (Orange County Superior Court). Plaintiff's complaint is styled as a class action and alleges that Sunrise failed to properly schedule the purported class of care givers and other related positions so that they would be able to take meal and rest breaks as provided for under California law. The complaint asserts claims for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to pay wages upon ending employment; (5) failure to keep accurate payroll records; (6) unfair business practices; and (7) unfair competition. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, statutory penalties provided for under the California Labor Code, injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees. On June 17, 2010, Sunrise removed this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. SACV 10-897 CJC (MLGx)). On July 16, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which the Court denied. The parties have completed briefing on class certification, and the Court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification on January 23, 2012. On February 27, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. In addition, on January 31, 2012, the same counsel filed what that counsel characterized as a related lawsuit captioned Cheryl Miller, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., a Virginia corporation; and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC478075 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On or about February 8, 2012, Plaintiff Cheryl Miller filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which was served on Sunrise on February 15, 2012. Plaintiff's FAC is styled as a class action and alleges that Sunrise failed to pay all wages owed to employees as a result of allegedly improper "rounding" of time to the nearest quarter hour and that Sunrise failed to comply with the California Labor Code by issuing "debit cards" to pay wages. The FAC asserts claims for: (1) failure to pay all wages due to illegal rounding; (2) unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices; (3) failure to provide accurate pay stubs, (4) failure to pay wages upon ending employment; (5) failure to comply with Labor Code Section 212 regarding payment of wages, and (6) seeking penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, statutory penalties provided for under the California Labor Code, injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees. Sunrise believes that Plaintiff's allegations are not meritorious and that a class action is not appropriate in this case, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Because of the early stage of this lawsuit, the Company says it cannot at this time estimate an amount or range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome. VERENIUM CORP: Settlement of IPO Shareholder Suits Now Final ------------------------------------------------------------ A settlement resolving litigation over initial public offerings, to which Verenium Corporation was a party, is now final, according to the Company's March 5, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In April 2009, the Company executed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in December 2002 in a U.S. federal district court (the "Court"). This lawsuit is part of a series of related lawsuits, referred to as the IPO Cases, in which similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other public companies, or Issuers, that conducted an Initial Public Offering, or IPO, of their common stock in 2000 and the late 1990s. In February 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the Court that a settlement of all IPO Cases had been agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties and preliminary and final approval by the Court. In April 2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement to the Court and moved for preliminary approval thereof. In June 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the tentative settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be published and mailed to class members. In October 2009, following a final fairness hearing, the Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted final approval to the settlement. Thereafter, a number of shareholders filed appeals to the Second Circuit, objecting to the settlement. On January 10, 2012, the last of these shareholder appeals was dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the settlement is now final, all claims against the Company and its officers and directors in the IPO Cases will be dismissed with prejudice, and the Company's pro rata share of the settlement will be fully funded by insurance. Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Verenium Corporation (NASDAQ: VRNM) -- http://www.verenium.com/-- develops and commercializes high- performance enzymes for use in industrial processes. Verenium currently sells enzymes developed using its R&D capabilities to industrial customers globally for use in markets including biofuels, animal health and oil seed processing. WALTER ENERGY: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC said it has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walter Energy, Inc. between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). 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. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 26, 2012. The complaint charges Walter and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walter, through its consolidated subsidiaries, mines and exports hard coking coal for the global steel industry. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing so-called "squeeze" events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced Walter's coal production; (ii) that the Company's commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter at first quarter sales prices would result in a material adverse effect on Walter's average sales prices and operating results during the second quarter; (iii) that Walter was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (iv) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business prospects during the Class Period. On August 3, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its operating results for its 2011 fiscal second quarter, the period ended June 30, 2011. For the quarter, the Company announced net income of $107.4 million, or $1.71 per diluted common share, significantly less than Wall Street estimates. Then, On September 21, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its attempt to "enhance" its historical statistical disclosure and its revisions to its 2011 second half sales expectations. In response to this announcement, the price of Walter common stock declined from $75.00 per share on September 20, 2011 to $66.25 on September 21, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume. Contact: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES JR., PC Telephone: (412) 391-5164 Toll Free: 1(800) 391-5164 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com WORLD WRESTLING: Settlement of IPO-Related Suit Completed --------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit over its initial public offering is now complete, according to the Company's March 1, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In December 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of federal securities laws relating to the Company's initial public offering in 1999. According to the claims, the underwriters, who were also named as defendants, allegedly engaged in manipulative practices by, among other things, pre-selling allotments of shares of the Company's stock in return for undisclosed, excessive commissions from the purchasers and/or entering into after-market tie-in arrangements to artificially inflate the Company's stock price. The complaint further alleges that the Company knew or should have known of such unlawful practices. In or around March 2009, the parties agreed to a global settlement of the litigation in its entirety. On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlement, which was granted by the court by order dated June 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the court granted final approval of the settlement agreement, to which the Company is a party, and various objectors filed notices to appeal this decision. The appeals were resolved during 2011, and the settlement is complete, with no liability on the part of the Company. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., a publicly traded company (NYSE: WWE), is an integrated media organization and recognized leader in global entertainment. YMCA: Faces Class Action Over Sexual Assault Incidents ------------------------------------------------------ Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a married couple claim in a class action that YMCAs, which advertise themselves as safe for families, with "Christian values," are actually "brothels" for homosexual men "cruising" for sexual relationships, who subject members to unwanted advances. In his complaint in Buncombe County Court, Michael Keister claims he is one of many YMCA members who were victims of sexual assault and unwanted advances at YMCA facilities. Mr. Keister and his wife, Susan Lewis-Keister, sued the National Council of the Young Men's Christian Association of the United States of America dba YMCA of the USA, YMCA of Western North Carolina and five North Carolina YMCA centers. In a second complaint, Mr. Keister seeks damages for negligence and infliction of emotional distress from YMCA of Western North Carolina. In the class action, Mr. Keister, of Asheville, says he decided to buy gym memberships for his family at the local YMCA "because of the YMCA's image as a safe place for families and children and as [a] place that champions Christian values, such as decency, kindness, and fairness." But Mr. Keister says the YMCA misleads customers through its marketing campaigns, cultivating a false image of places with "high ethical standards and Christian values," when in fact they tolerate "cruising" for homosexual relationships and allow members to be subjected to unwanted sexual advances. "In spring 2009, the image of the YMCA as a safe and protected environment came crashing down for plaintiffs on several separate visits to the facility," the complaint states. "After renewing his membership at the facility, Keister experienced his first, in what would eventually become a series of unwanted sexual advances and activity taking place at the Asheville YMCA facility. "Keister was showering in the men's locker rooms showers when two men entered the shower area together from the pool. As Keister stood there, only feet away, the shorter of the two men lathered up the other man and began to fondle the taller man's genitals. The showers were open and visible to anyone in the locker room. "When the men noticed the shocked look on Keister's face, the shorter man replied. 'What?', with a menacing tone that made it seem as if Keister was the one who was acting inappropriately. "'What?!' Keister responded, 'Not appropriate.' 'It's just not appropriate.' "Unsettled by what he was seeing, Keister left the shower area immediately, got dressed, and reported the incident to the front desk. "The employee responded, 'We are aware of this behavior and we're taking steps to address it. You're not the first to complain.' The employee assured Mr. Keister that it would not happen again. "Shortly after this incident, Keister returned to the Asheville YMCA only to be subjected to yet another inappropriate incident. "This time Keister was in the steam room. As members were coming and going, Keister sat alone on the upper deck with his elbows on his thighs and looking down at the floor. "When the room had cleared of all but one patron, the man sitting across the room began to clear his throat as if he were trying to get Keister's attention. "When Keister looked up at the man, the man revealed his erect penis to Keister and began masturbating energetically while staring at Keister. "Keister left the steam room immediately and reported the incident to a female manager on duty, determined to get answers. "Like the employee before her, the YMCA's manager's response surprised Keister. She acknowledged that the YMCA has had a problem with public sex acts in the men's locker room for years. She assured him that the YMCA would take immediate steps to address the issue and that it was safe for him to continue to use the facilities. "Having received this assurance from management, Keister relied on this reassurance and continued to make use of the facility. "A short time later, after a workout, Keister entered the sauna. No one else was in the sauna when Keister entered. "Soon, another man entered the sauna and sat down while Keister was reading a newspaper. "Suddenly, and seemingly out of nowhere, the man reached over and firmly grabbed Keister's penis, yanking on it, and would not let it go. "Shocked, Keister grabbed the man's arm, pried the man's hand off his penis and yelled in disbelief. "The man ran out of the sauna. "Still in shock from what happened, Keister tried to collect himself and chase after the man. He went into the dressing area but could not locate him." Mr. Keister says that after these incidents, he questioned whether it was safe to bring his 3-year-old son to the YMCA. He says he reported the sexual assault to the facility's new manager, who assured Mr. Keister he would take steps to eliminate the problem. But Mr. Keister says the YMCA failed to take any real action. "Later, Keister returned to the YMCA to ascertain what measures, if any, had been taken," the complaint states. "The sole corrective action he observed was a sign in the men's locker room prohibiting inappropriate behavior. On his final visit to the downtown Asheville YMCA center locker room, a man propositioned Mr. Keister for a New Year's Eve date." Mr. Keister says former YMCA employees confirmed that YMCA management takes a "soft approach" to dealing with such inappropriate conduct. He says many other members have been the victims of unwanted sexual advances at YMCA facilities. According to the complaint, the YMCA has long tolerated cruising -- defined as the "search in public places for a sex partner" -- at its facilities and has done nothing to prevent it. "In the time following these incidents, Keister was troubled by the way the YMCA discounted his complaints," the complaint states. "Unable to comprehend the organization's apparent lack of concern about the assault and its lack of urgency in addressing his complaints, plaintiff investigated further. In doing so, Keister discovered that the Y-WNC is a microcosm of pervasive cruising at YMCAs nationwide. Indeed the Y-USA and its subordinate organizations have turned a blind eye towards cruising for decades and have harbored such illicit behavior, which has now become even more prolific at YMCAs nationwide with the advent of the Internet and social networking Web sites. "The YMCA is widely acclaimed nationwide as one of the top cruising spots for men. As the YMCA knows, men who are seeking to 'cruise' and have sex in YMCA locker rooms, steam baths and saunas post advertisements around the country on the popular Web site www.craigslist.com ('Craigslist') and other Internet sites daily. There are countless personal ads listed for men seeking men with whom to engage in sex and other sexually explicit activities at the YMCA. The content of such ads, some of which contain some of the most indecent images on the web, confirms that 'cruising' and public sex is a daily occurrence at YMCAs in North Carolina and around the country." Mr. Keister says the practice is so pervasive that many other Web sites, two of which he names in the complaint, are dedicated to describing the layout of various YMCAs and giving instructions on how to best pursue sexual activity there. "There is a published list of instructions on how to effectively cruise at the YMCA," the complaint states. "On Cruising Gays, for example, it is recommended that cruisers 'start stroking in the sauna or shower and look for a response.' In addition, Cruising Gays recommends that at YMCAs, cruisers 'go in the sauna with just your towel wrapped around you, shift yourself around a few times to see if.' Cruisers also are advised to '[w]ait for a guy to check you out and grab your dick.'" Mr. Keister claims that many of the "cruising" ads are posted on Web sites catering to the general public, and feature "YMCA" in ad titles. The complaint lists several Craigslist posts that advertise cruising activities at YMCA centers, in graphic terms. Mr. Keister says the YMCA is not only aware about the activities taking place at its facilities, it tacitly promotes them. The complaint states: "Upon information and belief, YMCAs around the country and in North Carolina, in particular, are currently being used as brothels for cruising, with the YMCA's knowledge and implicit consent. This poses inordinate and unforeseen risks to the YMCA's non-cruising members and guests. "Notwithstanding, the YMCA continues to represent to plaintiff and the public at large that the YMCA 'promote[s] high ethical standards and Christian values' and 'programs provide a healthy and safe environment for families to share experiences, improve relationships, and communicate on a different level.' "Such claims are misleading, incomplete, and deceptive. The YMCA has a long history and awareness of cruising and its 'soft approach' and tacit approval of cruising is putting its members, guests, and consumers in harm's way." Mr. Keister adds: "Fundamentally, members, such as plaintiffs, and their families cannot engage in routine lavatory behavior at YMCAs without 'cruising' men assuming they are signaling a desire for sex. Patrons are unknowingly answering 'yes' to solicitations for sexual interaction with strangers while being oblivious to the fact that the question is being posed to them. Its patrons thus are the unwitting targets and victims of sexual crimes, such as the ones suffered by plaintiff Keister." The Keisters seek class certification, restitution, and compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. And they want the YMCA to stop the wrongful conduct. YMCA Chief Operating Officer John Mikos did not return requests for comment. A copy of the Complaint in Keister, et ux. v. National Council of the Young Men's Christian Association of the United States of America d/b/a YMCA of the USA, et al., Case No. 12CV01137 (N.C. Super. Ct., Buncombe Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/YMCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul A. Capua, Esq. Michael J. Volpe, Esq. CAPUA LAW FIRM, P.A. The Greenhouse 164 South Depot Street Boone, NC 28607 Telephone: (828) 264-0260 E-mail: pcapua@capualawfirm.com ZOLL MEDICAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Mass. Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Zoll Medical Corp. is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Asahi Kasei Corp., for $93 a share or $2.1 billion, in Middlesex County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Rodriguez v. Zoll Medical Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-1004 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN, MANDELCORN & ZEYTOONIAN, LLP 110 Cedar Street, Suite 250 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 Telephone: (781) 431-2231 E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Edward B. Gerard, Esq. Justin D. Rieger, Esq. ROBBINS UMEDA LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: soddo@robbinsumeda.com kmcintyre@robbinsumeda.com jrieger@robbinsumeda.com - and - Willie Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC Willie Briscoe, Esq. 8117 Preston Road, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: (214) 706-9314 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Patrick Powers, Esq. POWERS TAYLOR LLP 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-4565 E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Remains a Defendant in 30 Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., continues to defend itself against 30 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "We are one of several unrelated defendants in 30 lawsuits filed in Louisiana and Mississippi state courts alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard our offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted and we expect to receive complete defense and indemnity with respect to a majority of the lawsuits from Murphy Exploration & Production Company pursuant to the terms of our 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. We also believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the remaining lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation, and we have filed a declaratory judgment action in Texas state court against NuStar Energy LP, the successor to Diamond M Corporation, seeking a judicial determination that we did not assume liability for these claims. We are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do not believe that ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is a global offshore oil and gas drilling contractor with a fleet of 49 offshore rigs, consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, 13 jack-ups and four dynamically positioned drillships, three of which are under construction. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 29,064 Pending Suits v. General Cable at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation had 29,064 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against it at the end of 2011, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company has been a defendant in asbestos litigation for approximately 20 years. As of December 31, 2011, General Cable was a defendant in 29,064 lawsuits. Also, 28,438 of these lawsuits have been brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm ("MARDOC") and seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally allege that they formerly worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related injuries from products that General Cable ceased manufacturing in the mid-1970s. The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("District Court") by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"). In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996 dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed them on an inactive administrative docket. To reinstate a MARDOC case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show that the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos related injury, but also must produce specific product identification evidence to proceed against an individual defendant. During 2010, the MDL Court ordered Plaintiffs to identify the defendants against whom they intended to proceed in the Maritime cases. General Cable was not named as a defendant against whom the plaintiffs intended to proceed. As such it is now anticipated that General Cable will be dismissed from all Maritime related lawsuits. In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the Company. As of December 31, 2011, General Cable was a defendant in approximately 29,064 cases brought in Federal District Courts throughout the United States. With regards to the approximately 626 remaining cases, General Cable has aggressively defended these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to General Cable manufactured asbestos- containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of General Cable product. In the last 20 years, General Cable has had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, General Cable was dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. For cases outside the MDL as of December 31, 2011, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 281 cases. In 146 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $175,000 per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 134 other cases pending in state and Federal District Courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately $346 million in damages from as many as 110 defendants. In 1 case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $10 million. In addition, in relation to these 281 cases, there are claims of $178 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. Based on the Company's experience in this litigation, the amounts pleaded in the complaints are not typically meaningful as an indicator of the Company's potential liability because (1) the amounts claimed usually bear no relation to the level of plaintiff's injury, if any; (2) complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants (a typical complaint asserts claims against some 50 different defendants); (3) damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants; (4) the defendants' share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability; (5) the amount of fault to be allocated to each defendant is different depending on each case; (6) many cases are filed against General Cable, even though the plaintiff did not use any of General Cable's products, and ultimately are withdrawn or dismissed without any payment; (7) many cases are brought on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injuries, and ultimately are resolved without any payment to that plaintiff; and (8) with regard to claims for punitive damages, potential liability generally is related to the amount of potential exposure to asbestos from a defendant's products. General Cable's asbestos- containing products contained only a minimal amount of fully encapsulated asbestos. Further, General Cable has approximately 20 years of experience in this litigation, and has, to date, resolved the claims of approximately 11,437 plaintiffs. The cumulative average settlement through December 31, 2011 has been approximately $693 per case. However, the average settlements paid to resolve litigation in 2011 and 2010 have increased significantly above that amount as the mix of cases currently being listed for trial in state courts and those which may be listed in the future, which may need to be resolved, involve more serious asbestos related injuries. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, General Cable had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $5.1 million and had recorded approximately $0.6 million and $0.5 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits, respectively. Management believes that the net amount of $4.5 million and $4.6 million, as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, represents the best estimate in order to cover resolution of future asbestos-related claims. In January 1994, General Cable entered into a settlement agreement with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the insurers are responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. In recent years, one of the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings. As a result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and the Company has had to bear a larger portion of the costs relating to these lawsuits. Moreover, certain of the other insurers may be financially unstable, and if one or more of these insurers enter into insurance liquidation proceedings, General Cable will be required to pay a larger portion of the costs incurred in connection with these cases. During 2006, the Company reached an approximately $3.0 million settlement in cash for the resolution of one of these insurers' obligations that effectively exhausted the limits of the insurance company's policies that were included in the 1994 settlement agreement. Based on (1) the terms of the insurance settlement agreement; (2) the relative costs and expenses incurred in the disposition of past asbestos cases; (3) reserves established on the Company's books which are believed to be reasonable; and (4) defenses available to the Company in the litigation, the Company believes that the resolution of the present asbestos litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial results, consolidated cash flows or consolidated financial position. However, since the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company cannot give absolute assurance regarding the future resolution of the asbestos litigation. Liabilities incurred in connection with asbestos litigation are not covered by the American Premier indemnification. General Cable Corporation develops, designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes copper, aluminum, and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty, and communications markets worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 50,090 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation had pending approximately 50,090 asbestos claims as of December 31, 2011, as compared with approximately 52,220 as of December 31, 2010, and 62,360 as of December 31, 2009, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos- containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships. Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had pending approximately 50,090 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 52,220 as of December 31, 2010 and 62,360 as of December 31, 2009. During 2011, the Company received approximately 4,410 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 6,540 claims. The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2011 and 2010 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately $33 million and $14 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year as insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses. Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos- related disease. The predominant number of claims against the Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed injury. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities. CBS Corporation is a mass media company with operations in these segments: entertainment; cable networks; publishing; local broadcasting and outdoor. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Had 5,443 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc., recorded 5,443 pending asbestos claims at end of 2011, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. AIG continues to receive claims asserting injuries and damages from toxic waste, hazardous substances, and other environmental pollutants and alleged claims to cover the cleanup costs of hazardous waste dump sites, referred to collectively as environmental claims, and indemnity claims asserting injuries from asbestos. The vast majority of these asbestos and environmental claims emanate from policies written in 1984 and prior years. Commencing in 1985, standard policies contained an absolute exclusion for pollution-related damage and an absolute asbestos exclusion was also implemented. The majority of AIG's exposures for asbestos and environmental claims are excess casualty coverages, not primary coverages. Thus, the litigation costs are treated in the same manner as indemnity amounts. That is, litigation expenses are included within the limits of the liability AIG incurs. Individual significant claim liabilities, where future litigation costs are reasonably determinable, are established on a case-by-case basis. On June 17, 2011, Chartis, a division of AIG, completed a transaction with NICO, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., under which the bulk of Chartis' net domestic asbestos liabilities were transferred to NICO as part of Chartis' ongoing strategy to reduce its overall loss reserve development risk. The transaction with NICO covers potentially volatile U.S.-related asbestos exposures. The transaction does not cover asbestos accounts that Chartis believes have already been reserved to their limit of liability or certain other ancillary asbestos exposure assumed by Chartis subsidiaries. Effective as of January 1, 2011, Chartis ceded the bulk of its net domestic asbestos liabilities to NICO under a retroactive reinsurance agreement with an aggregate limit of $3.5 billion. The aggregate limit includes NICO's assumption of collection risk for existing third-party reinsurance recoverable associated with these liabilities. Chartis paid NICO approximately $1.67 billion as consideration for this cession and NICO assumed approximately $1.82 billion of net U.S. asbestos liabilities. As a result of this transaction, Chartis recorded a deferred gain of $150 million in the second quarter of 2011, which is being amortized into income over the settlement period of the underlying claims. As of December 31, 2011, AIG's net liability for unpaid asbestos claims and claims adjustment expense at end of year, reflecting NICO transaction was $537 million. As of December 31, 2011, AIG reported this asbestos claims count activity: Claims at beginning of year 4,933 Claims during year: Opened 141 Settled (183) Dismissed or otherwise resolved (289) Other 841 Claims at end of year 5,443 American International Group, Inc., (AIG) is an international insurance organization serving customers in more than 130 countries. AIG companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers through one of the most extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any insurer. In addition, AIG companies are providers of life insurance and retirement services in the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at formerly owned facilities. The Company believes that pending and reasonably anticipated future actions are not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance, however, that future legislative or other developments will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows in a given period, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. No further asbestos-related update was reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. Goodrich Corporation is one of the largest worldwide suppliers of aerospace components, systems and services to the commercial and general aviation airplane markets. It is also a supplier of systems and products to the global defense and space markets. Its business is conducted globally with manufacturing, service and sales undertaken in various locations throughout the world. Its products and services are sold principally to customers in North America, Europe and Asia. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26,000 Pending Claims v. Dana Holding at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Holding Corporation had approximately 26,000 active pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at December 31, 2011, versus 30,000 at December 31, 2010, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "In addition, approximately 1,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or without payment. We have accrued $89 million for indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future claims at December 31, 2011, compared to $101 million at December 31, 2010. We use a fifteen-year time horizon for our estimate of this liability. "At December 31, 2011, we had recorded $53 million as an asset for probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $52 million recorded at December 31, 2010. The recorded asset represents our assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to recover under the respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers. We have coverage agreements in place with our insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity and defense costs. A 2011 settlement with one of the insurers provided increased coverage on pending and projected claims, resulting in an increased aggregate receivable as a percent of the total liability at December 31, 2011. "As part of our reorganization, assets and liabilities associated with asbestos claims were retained in Dana Corporation which was then merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated wholly-owned subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana Companies, LLC include insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities and other assets which we believe are sufficient to satisfy its liabilities. Dana Companies, LLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of business, is separately managed and has an independent board member. The independent board member is required to approve certain transactions including dividends or other transfers of $1 million or more of value to Dana. "During the second quarter of 2011, we reached an agreement with an insurer to settle a long-standing claim pending in the liquidation proceedings of the insurer and recorded the estimated fair value of the recovery. As a result, other income includes a $6 million credit for this recovery of past outlays related to asbestos claims. During 2010, we recorded $1 million of pre-tax expense ($2 million during the first quarter, offset by a $1 million credit during the second quarter) to correct amounts primarily associated with asbestos-related insurance receivables at December 31, 2009. These adjustments were not considered material to 2010 or to the prior periods to which they relate." Dana Holdings Corporation is headquartered in Maumee, Ohio and was incorporated in Delaware in 2007. It is a supplier of driveline products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power technologies (sealing and thermal-management products) and genuine service parts for vehicle manufacturers world-wide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Continues to Seek Coverage for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Coca-Cola Company continues to pursue its lawsuit against its insurers over coverage of asbestos claims, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Coca-Cola states: "During the period from 1970 to 1981, our Company owned Aqua-Chem, Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. ("Aqua-Chem"). During that time, the Company purchased over $400 million of insurance coverage, which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and future costs for certain product liability and other claims. A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers. Several years after our Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of some of the gaskets. Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently has approximately 40,000 active claims pending against it. "In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified our Company that it believed we were obligated for certain costs and expenses associated with its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that our Company reimburse it for approximately $10 million for out-of- pocket litigation-related expenses. Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses that are excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or for which there is no insurance. Our Company disputes Aqua-Chem's claims, and we believe we have no obligation to Aqua-Chem for any of its past, present or future liabilities, costs or expenses. "Furthermore, we believe we have substantial legal and factual defenses to Aqua-Chem's claims. The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of Aqua-Chem. In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in excess of their obligations. During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into an escrow account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. "On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed. The judgment directs, among other things, that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua- Chem's losses up to policy limits. The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. The Georgia litigation remains subject to the stay agreement. The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to negotiate with various insurers that were defendants in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation over those insurers' obligations to defend and indemnify Aqua-Chem for the asbestos-related claims. The Company anticipated that a final settlement with three of those insurers would be finalized in May 2011, but such insurers repudiated their settlement commitments and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the Company filed suit against them in Wisconsin state court to enforce the coverage-in-place settlement or, in the alternative, to obtain a declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's interpretation of the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. Whether or not Aqua-Chem and the Company prevail in the coverage-in-place settlement litigation, these three insurance companies will remain subject to the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation. "The Company is unable to estimate at this time the amount or range of reasonably possible loss it may ultimately incur as a result of asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The Company believes that assuming (a) the defense and indemnity costs for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem in the future are in the same range as during the past five years, and (b) the various insurers that cover the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem remain solvent, regardless of the outcome of the coverage-in-place settlement litigation, there will likely be little defense or indemnity costs that are not covered by insurance over the next five to seven years and, therefore, it is unlikely that Aqua-Chem would seek indemnification from the Company within that period of time. In the event Aqua-Chem and the Company prevail in the coverage-in-place settlement litigation, and based on the same assumptions, the Company believes insurance coverage for substantially all defense and indemnity costs would be available for the next 10 to 12 years." The Coca-Cola Company is the world's largest beverage company. The Company owns or licenses and markets more than 500 nonalcoholic beverage brands, primarily sparkling beverages but also a variety of still beverages such as waters, enhanced waters, juices and juice drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and energy and sports drinks. Its products are sold in more than 200 countries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brunswick Unit Still a Defendant in 2,500 Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brunswick Corporation's subsidiary, Old Orchard Industrial Corp., remains a defendant in more than 2,500 lawsuits involving claims of asbestos exposure from products manufactured by Vapor Corporation, a former subsidiary divested by the Company in 1990, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The substantial majority of the asbestos suits involve numerous other defendants. The claims generally allege that Vapor sold products that contained asbestos, and seek monetary damages. Neither Brunswick nor Vapor is alleged to have manufactured asbestos. Several thousand claims against Vapor have been dismissed with no payment and no claim has gone to jury verdict. In a few cases, claims have been filed against other Brunswick entities alleging the sale of products with components that include asbestos. A majority of these suits have been dismissed or settled. The Company does not believe that the resolution of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. Brunswick Corporation is a Delaware corporation, incorporated on December 31, 1907. Brunswick is a global designer, manufacturer and marketer of recreation products including marine engines, boats, fitness equipment and bowling and billiards equipment. Brunswick's engine products include: outboard, sterndrive and inboard engines; trolling motors; propellers; engine control systems; and marine parts and accessories. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 23,682 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Colfax Corporation's subsidiaries had 23,682 pending asbestos claims at the end of 2011, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant has fluctuated during the past several years. The Company expects such fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among other things, the number and type of claims settled in a particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims arise. To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no payment. Of the 23,682 pending claims as of December 31, 2011, approximately 3,700 of such claims have been brought in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York; approximately 550 of such claims have been brought in the U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan; approximately 200 of such claims have been brought in the Superior Court, Middlesex County, New Jersey; and approximately 50 claims have been brought in various federal and state courts in Mississippi. The remaining pending claims have been filed in various other state and federal courts. Claims activity related to asbestos is: Year Ended Dec. 31, 2011 ------------------------ (Number of Claims) Claims unresolved, beginning of period 24,764 Claims filed 4,927 Claims resolved (6,009) Claims unresolved, end of period 23,682 (In Dollars) Average cost of resolved claims $15,397 The Company has projected each subsidiary's future asbestos- related liability costs with regard to pending and future unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and has been accepted by numerous courts. It is the Company's policy to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs for the longest period of time that it can reasonably estimate. The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos- related liability for pending and future claims that will be resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does not believe the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be paid after the next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related liabilities as well as costs incurred related to litigation against the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred. During the year ended December 31, 2009, an analysis of claims data including filing and dismissal rates, alleged disease mix, filing jurisdiction, as well as settlement values resulted in the determination that the Company should revise its rolling 15-year estimate of asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims. The analysis reflected that a statistically significant increase in mesothelioma filings had occurred and was expected to continue for both subsidiaries. As a result, the Company recorded an $11.6 million pretax charge, which was comprised of an increase to its asbestos-related liabilities of $111.3 million offset by expected insurance recoveries of $99.7 million, during the year ended December 31, 2009. Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to Company ownership of each independent entity. In its evaluation of the insurance asset, the Company used differing insurance allocation methodologies for each subsidiary based upon the applicable law pertaining to the affected subsidiary. For one of the subsidiaries, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled on October 14, 2009 that asbestos-related costs should be allocated among excess insurers using an "all sums" allocation (which allows an insured to collect all sums paid in connection with a claim from any insurer whose policy is triggered, up to the policy's applicable limits) and that the subsidiary has rights to excess insurance policies purchased by a former owner of the business. Based upon this ruling mandating an "all sums" allocation, as well as the language of the underlying insurance policies and the assertion and belief that defense costs are outside policy limits, during the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company increased its future expected recovery percentage from 67% to 90% of asbestos-related costs following the exhaustion of its primary and umbrella layers of insurance and recorded a pretax gain of $17.3 million. The subsidiary expects to be responsible for approximately 10% of its future asbestos-related costs. For this subsidiary, during the year ended December 31, 2010, an insolvent carrier that had written approximately $1.4 million in limits for which the subsidiary had assumed no recovery made a cash settlement offer of approximately $0.7 million. As such, the subsidiary recorded a gain for this amount. The subsidiary was notified in 2010 by the primary and umbrella carrier who had been fully defending and indemnifying the subsidiary for 20 years that the limits of liability of its primary and umbrella layer policies had been exhausted. Since then, the subsidiary has sought coverage from certain excess layer insurers whose terms and conditions follow form to the umbrella carrier. Certain first-layer excess insurers have defended and/or indemnified the subsidiary, subject to their reservations of rights and their applicable policy limits. Litigation between this subsidiary and its excess insurers is continuing and a trial date has been set for the fourth quarter of 2012. The subsidiary continues to work with its excess insurers to obtain defense and indemnity payments while the litigation is proceeding. Given the uncertainties of litigation, there is a variety of possible outcomes, including but not limited to the subsidiary being required to fund all or a portion of the subsidiary's defense and indemnity payments until such time a final ruling orders payment by the insurers. While not impacting the results of operations, the funding requirement could range up to $10 million per quarter until final resolution. In addition, because a statistically significant increase in mesothelioma claims had occurred and was expected to continue to occur in certain regions, this subsidiary recorded a $1.8 million pre-tax charge, which was comprised of an increase in its asbestos-related liabilities of $18.1 million partially offset by an increase in expected insurance recoveries of $16.3 million, during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2011. In 2003, the other subsidiary filed a lawsuit against a large number of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety of disputes concerning insurance for asbestos-related bodily injury claims asserted against it. Although none of these insurance companies contested coverage, they disputed the timing, reasonableness and allocation of payments. For this subsidiary it was determined by court ruling in 2007, that the allocation methodology mandated by the New Jersey courts will apply. Further court rulings in December of 2009, clarified the allocation calculation related to amounts currently due from insurers as well as amounts the Company expects to be reimbursed for asbestos-related costs incurred in future periods. As a result, during the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company increased its receivable for past costs by $11.9 million and decreased its insurance asset for future costs by $9.8 million and recorded a pretax gain of $2.1 million. In connection with this litigation, the court engaged a special master to review the appropriate information and recommend an allocation formula in accordance with applicable law and the facts of the case. During 2010, the court-appointed special allocation master made its recommendation. As a result, during the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company reduced the current asbestos receivable by $2.8 million, decreased the long-term asbestos asset by $1.2 million and recorded a net charge to asbestos liability and defense costs of $4.0 million. In May 2011, the court accepted the recommendation with modifications. A final judgment at the trial court level in this litigation was rendered during the year ended December 31, 2011, but appeals have been entered. As a result of this judgment, the Company recorded a provision for $2.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2011, which is reflected in the Balance Sheet as an increase of $1.4 million in Other accrued liabilities and a reduction of $0.7 million in Asbestos insurance asset. The Company made a payment of $5.0 million, which was previously accrued for, to return certain overpayments to the insurers. In addition, because of the higher settlement values per mesothelioma claim in 2011 in a specific region, this subsidiary recorded a $0.7 million pre-tax charge, which was comprised of an increase to its asbestos-related liabilities of $4.7 million partially offset by an increase in expected insurance recoveries of $4.0 million, during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2011. This trend is not expected to continue for this subsidiary. The subsidiary expects to be responsible for approximately 16% of all future asbestos- related costs. Colfax Corporation is a diversified global industrial manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to commercial and governmental customers around the world under the Howden and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $431.1MM Reserves at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation has established reserves of $431.1 million and $429.7 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for the probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost it believes the subsidiaries will pay through the next 15 years, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. The Company has also established recoverables of $370.3 million and $374.4 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable during the same time period. Net of these recoverables, the expected cash outlay on a non-discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims over the next 15 years was $60.8 million and $55.3 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. In addition, the Company has recorded a receivable for liability and defense costs previously paid in the amount of $47.7 million and $51.8 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for which insurance recovery is deemed probable. The Company has included the reserves for the asbestos liabilities in Accrued asbestos liability and Long-term asbestos liability and the related insurance recoveries in Asbestos insurance asset and Long- term asbestos insurance asset in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The receivable for previously paid liability and defense costs is recorded in Asbestos insurance receivable and Long-term asbestos insurance receivable in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company also has reflected in Other accrued liabilities $27.6 million and $23.3 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for overpayments by certain insurers and unpaid legal costs related to defending itself against asbestos-related liability claims and legal action against the Company's insurers. Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow. Colfax Corporation is a diversified global industrial manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to commercial and governmental customers around the world under the Howden and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $12.2M 2011 Liability & Defense Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation's asbestos liability and defense costs for the year ended December 31, 2011, were $12.2 million, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Asbestos liability and defense costs (income) is comprised of projected indemnity cost, changes in the projected asbestos liability, changes in the probable insurance recovery of the projected asbestos-related liability, changes in the probable recovery of asbestos liability and defense costs paid in prior periods, and actual defense costs expensed in the period. Asbestos liability and defense costs (income) for the year ended December 31, 2011, were $12.2 million. Asbestos liability and defense costs increased by $4.3 million during 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to a $2.1 million provision related to a court judgment received for one of the Company's subsidiaries' litigation against a number of its insurers and former parent, a $1.8 million pre-tax charge because of a statistically significant increase in mesothelioma claims had occurred and is expected to continue to occur related to one of the Company's subsidiaries and a $0.7 million pre-tax charge resulting from higher settlement values per mesothelioma claim in a specific region, which is not a trend that is expected to continue, related to the other subsidiary. Additionally, lower levels of legal spending in 2010 and a higher level of projected insurance recovery driven by insurance policies triggered during the 2010 periods contributed to the fluctuation in comparison to the comparable 2010 periods. Asbestos liability and defense costs were $7.9 million in 2010 compared to income of $2.2 million in 2009. The increase in Asbestos liability and defense costs was primarily attributable to a net pre-tax gain of $7.8 million recorded in 2009, comprised of a $19.4 million gain to increase the insurance asset as a result of favorable court rulings in October and December of 2009 concerning allocation methodology, partially offset by an $11.6 million charge to increase asbestos-related liabilities by $111.3 million, offset by an increase to expected insurance recoveries of $99.7 million arising from a revision to the Company's 15-year estimate of asbestos-related liabilities. Additionally, the Company recorded charges totaling $4.0 million in the third and fourth quarters of 2010 as a result of developments in the litigation, which was partially offset by a $0.7 million gain resulting from a settlement received from an insolvent carrier. Asbestos coverage litigation expense includes legal costs related to the actions against two of the Company's subsidiaries' respective insurers and a former parent company of one of the subsidiaries. Asbestos coverage litigation expense for the year ended December 31, 2011, was $10.7 million. Legal costs related to the Company's subsidiaries' actions against their asbestos insurers decreased by $2.5 million during 2011 primarily due to more trial days being conducted in 2010 than 2011. Legal costs related to the Company's subsidiaries' actions against their asbestos insurers increased by $1.5 million during 2010 primarily due to costs associated with the trial by one of the Company's subsidiaries against insurers and former parent that began in January 2010. The trial phase of litigation against insurers concluded during the third quarter of 2011 for one of the Company's subsidiaries and is expected to conclude during the fourth quarter of 2012 for the other subsidiary. Colfax Corporation is a diversified global industrial manufacturing and engineering company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and services to commercial and governmental customers around the world under the Howden and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Has Net Reserves of $32.2MM at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Assurant Inc. had reserves of $32,229,000 (net of reinsurance) at the end of 2011 for claims including exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "Our property and warranty line of business includes exposure to asbestos, environmental and other general liability claims arising from our participation in various reinsurance pools from 1971 through 1985. This exposure arose from a contract that we discontinued writing many years ago. We carry case reserves, as recommended by the various pool managers, and reserves for incurred but not reported claims (IBNR) totaling $39,579,000 (before reinsurance) and $32,229,000 (net of reinsurance) at December 31, 2011. We believe the balance of case and IBNR reserves for these liabilities are adequate. However, any estimation of these liabilities is subject to greater than normal variation and uncertainty due to the general lack of sufficiently detailed data, reporting delays and absence of a generally accepted actuarial methodology for those exposures. There are significant unresolved industry legal issues, including such items as whether coverage exists and what constitutes a claim. In addition, the determination of ultimate damages and the final allocation of losses to financially responsible parties are highly uncertain. However, based on information currently available, and after consideration of the reserves reflected in the consolidated financial statements, we do not believe that changes in reserve estimates for these claims are likely to be material." Assurant Inc. is a provider of specialized insurance products and related services in North America and select worldwide markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Sees $7.4MM Cash Outflow in 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler AG estimates a net asbestos-related provision of $7.4 million in 2012, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "Our net asbestos-related provision is the result of our revaluation of our asbestos liability and related asset resulting from adjustments for actual settlement experience different from our estimates and the accrual of our rolling 15- year asbestos liability estimate, partially offset by gains on the settlement of coverage litigation with asbestos insurance carriers. "We expect to have net cash outflows of $7,400,000 as a result of asbestos liability indemnity and defense payments in excess of insurance settlement proceeds for during 2012. This estimate assumes no additional settlements with insurance companies and no elections by us to fund additional payments. As we continue to collect cash from insurance settlements and assuming no increase in our asbestos-related insurance liability, the asbestos-related insurance receivable recorded on our consolidated balance sheet will continue to decrease. 2011 2010 2009 ---- ---- ---- Amount $9,901,000 $5,410,000 $26,365,000 $ Change 4,491,000 (20,955,000) % Change 83.0% (79.5)% "Net asbestos-related provision increased in 2011, compared to 2010, which was the net result of a decreased gain on the settlement of coverage litigation with asbestos insurance carriers in 2011, compared to 2010, of $7,900, partially offset by a decreased provision related to the revaluation of our asbestos liability of $3,400. Our 2011 and 2010 provisions included charges to increase our asbestos liability for increased asbestos defense costs projected over our 15 year estimate. "Net asbestos-related provision decreased in 2010, compared to 2009, which was the result of an increased gain on the settlement of coverage litigation with asbestos insurance carriers in 2010, compared to 2009, of $12,800 and a decreased provision related to the revaluation of our asbestos liability of $8,200. Our 2010 and 2009 provisions included charges to increase our asbestos liability for increased asbestos defense costs projected over our 15-year estimate." Foster Wheeler AG operates through two business groups: the Global Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and its Global Power Group. In addition to these two business groups, the Company also report corporate center expenses, its captive insurance operation and expenses related to certain liabilities, such as asbestos, in the Corporate and Finance Group (C&F Group). Foster Wheeler serves industries, including oil and gas, oil refining, chemical/petrochemical, pharmaceutical; environmental, metals and mining, power generation and power plant operation and maintenance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler UK Units Have 301 Open Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- About 301 claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos remain open against some of Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "Some of our subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos. To date, 997 claims have been brought against our U.K. subsidiaries of which 301 remained open as of December 31, 2011. None of the settled claims has resulted in material costs to us. The following table summarizes our asbestos- related liabilities and assets for our U.K. subsidiaries based on open (outstanding) claims and our estimate for future unasserted claims through 2026: United Kingdom Asbestos Dec. 31, 2011 Dec. 31, 2010 ------------- ------------- Asbestos-related assets: Accounts and notes receivable-other $2,677,000 $1,927,000 Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable 26,120,000 29,119,000 ------------- ------------- Total asbestos-related assets $28,797,000 $31,046,000 ------------- ------------- Asbestos-related liabilities: Accrued expenses $2,677,000 $1,927,000 Asbestos-related liability 26,120,000 29,119,000 ------------- ------------- Total asbestos-related liabilities $28,797,000 $31,046,000 ------------- ------------- Liability balance by claim category: Open claims $8,030,000 $5,782,000 Future unasserted claims 20,767,000 25,264,000 ------------- ------------- Total asbestos-related liabilities $28,797,000 $31,046,000 ------------- ------------- "The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable injury. If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total asbestos liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be approximately $42,000,000." Foster Wheeler AG operates through two business groups: the Global Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and its Global Power Group. In addition to these two business groups, the Company also report corporate center expenses, its captive insurance operation and expenses related to certain liabilities, such as asbestos, in the Corporate and Finance Group (C&F Group). Foster Wheeler serves industries, including oil and gas, oil refining, chemical/petrochemical, pharmaceutical; environmental, metals and mining, power generation and power plant operation and maintenance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler US Units Have 124,540 Open Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- About 124,540 claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos remain open against some of Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United States, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. A summary of the Company's U.S. claim activity: Number of Claims: 2011 2010 2009 ---- ---- ---- Open claims at beginning of year 124,420 125,100 130,760 New claims 4,670 6,080 4,410 Claims resolved (4,550) (6,760) (10,070) ------- ------- ------- Open claims at end of year 124,540 124,420 125,100 ------- ------- ------- Claims not valued in the liability (103,170) (97,440) (94,740) ------- ------- ------- Open claims valued in the liability at end of year 21,370 26,980 30,360 ------- ------- ------- The Company states: "Claims not valued in the liability include claims on certain inactive court dockets, claims over six years old that are considered abandoned and certain other items. "Of the approximately 124,540 open claims, our subsidiaries are respondents in approximately 28,260 open claims wherein we have administrative agreements and are named defendants in lawsuits involving approximately 96,280 plaintiffs. "All of the open administrative claims have been filed under blanket administrative agreements that we have with various law firms representing claimants and do not specify monetary damages sought. Based on our analysis of lawsuits, approximately 54% do not specify the monetary damages sought or merely recite that the amount of monetary damages sought meets or exceeds the required minimum in the jurisdiction in which suit is filed. "The majority of requests for monetary damages are asserted against multiple named defendants in a single complaint. "Total U.S. asbestos-related liabilities are estimated through December 31, 2026. Although it is likely that claims will continue to be filed after that date, the uncertainties inherent in any long-term forecast prevent us from making reliable estimates of the indemnity and defense costs that might be incurred after that date. United States Asbestos Dec. 31, 2011 Dec. 31, 2010 ------------- ------------- Asbestos-related assets: Accounts and notes receivable-other $43,677,000 $54,449,000 Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable 131,007,000 165,452,000 ------------- ------------- Total asbestos-related assets $174,684,000 $219,901,000 ------------- ------------- Asbestos-related liabilities: Accrued expenses $50,900,000 $59,000,000 Asbestos-related liability 243,400,000 278,500,000 ------------- ------------- Total asbestos-related liabilities $294,300,000 $337,500,000 ------------- ------------- Liability balance by claim category: Open claims $56,700,000 $78,460,000 Future unasserted claims 237,600,000 259,040,000 ------------- ------------- Total asbestos-related liabilities $294,300,000 $337,500,000 ------------- ------------- "We have worked with Analysis, Research Planning Corporation, or ARPC, nationally recognized consultants in the United States with respect to projecting asbestos liabilities, to estimate the amount of asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs at each year-end based on a forecast for the next 15 years. Each year we have recorded our estimated asbestos liability at a level consistent with ARPC's reasonable best estimate. "Based on its review of the 2011 activity, ARPC recommended that the assumptions used to estimate our future asbestos liability be updated as of December 31, 2011. Accordingly, we developed a revised estimate of our aggregate indemnity and defense costs through December 31, 2026 considering the advice of ARPC. In 2011, we revalued our liability for asbestos indemnity and defense costs through December 31, 2026 to $294,300,000, which brought our liability to a level consistent with ARPC's reasonable best estimate. In connection with updating our estimated asbestos liability and related asset, we recorded a charge of $16,001,000 in 2011 primarily related to the revaluation of our asbestos liability, which includes adjustments for actual settlement experience different from our estimates and the accrual of our rolling 15-year asbestos-related liability estimate. The total asbestos-related liabilities are comprised of our estimates for our liability relating to open (outstanding) claims being valued and our liability for future unasserted claims through December 31, 2026. "Our liability estimate is based upon the following information and/or assumptions: number of open claims, forecasted number of future claims, estimated average cost per claim by disease type -- mesothelioma, lung cancer and non-malignancies -- and the breakdown of known and future claims into disease type -- mesothelioma, lung cancer or non-malignancies, as well as other factors. The total estimated liability, which has not been discounted for the time value of money, includes both the estimate of forecasted indemnity amounts and forecasted defense costs. Total defense costs and indemnity liability payments are estimated to be incurred through December 31, 2026, during which period the incidence of new claims is forecasted to decrease each year. We believe that it is likely that there will be new claims filed after December 31, 2026, but in light of uncertainties inherent in long-term forecasts, we do not believe that we can reasonably estimate the indemnity and defense costs that might be incurred after December 31, 2026. "Through year-end 2011, total cumulative indemnity costs paid, prior to insurance recoveries, were approximately $764,900,000 and total cumulative defense costs paid were approximately $367,300,000, or approximately 32% of total defense and indemnity costs. The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost per resolved claim through December 31, 2011, has been approximately $3,100. The average cost per resolved claim is increasing and we believe it will continue to increase in the future. "Over the last several years, certain of our subsidiaries have entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to make lump-sum payments, as well as payments over time, for use by our subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs and, in certain cases, for reimbursement for portions of out-of- pocket costs previously incurred. During 2011, 2010 and 2009, our subsidiaries reached agreements with certain of their insurers to settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance coverage. As a result of these settlements, we increased our asbestos-related insurance asset and recorded settlement gains. "Asbestos-related assets under executed settlement agreements with insurers due in the next 12 months are recorded within accounts and notes receivable-other and amounts due beyond 12 months are recorded within asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable. Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable also includes our best estimate of actual and probable insurance recoveries relating to our liability for pending and estimated future asbestos claims through year-end 2026. Our asbestos-related assets have not been discounted for the time value of money. "Our insurance recoveries may be limited by future insolvencies among our insurers. Other than receivables related to bankruptcy court-approved settlements during liquidation proceedings, we have not assumed recovery in the estimate of our asbestos-related insurance asset from any of our currently insolvent insurers. We have considered the financial viability and legal obligations of our subsidiaries' insurance carriers and believe that the insurers or their guarantors will continue to reimburse a significant portion of claims and defense costs relating to asbestos litigation. As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, we have not recorded an allowance for uncollectible balances against our asbestos- related insurance assets. We write off receivables from insurers that have become insolvent; there have been no such write-offs during 2011, 2010 and 2009. During 2011, we reached an agreement with an insurer that was under bankruptcy liquidation and for which we had written off our receivable prior to 2009. The asset awarded under the bankruptcy liquidation for this insurer was $4,500,000 and was included in our asbestos-related assets as of December 31, 2011. Other insurers may become insolvent in the future and our insurers may fail to reimburse amounts owed to us on a timely basis. If we fail to realize the expected insurance recoveries, or experience delays in receiving material amounts from our insurers, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected. Foster Wheeler AG operates through two business groups: the Global Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and its Global Power Group. In addition to these two business groups, the Company also report corporate center expenses, its captive insurance operation and expenses related to certain liabilities, such as asbestos, in the Corporate and Finance Group (C&F Group). Foster Wheeler serves industries, including oil and gas, oil refining, chemical/petrochemical, pharmaceutical; environmental, metals and mining, power generation and power plant operation and maintenance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Has $1MM Payable Under Trust in 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------ CIRCOR International, Inc.'s remaining $1.0 million payable to an asbestos trust is expected to be made during 2012, according to the Company's February 23, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company states: "On July 12, 2010, our subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc. ("Leslie") filed a voluntary petition (the "Bankruptcy Filing") under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and, simultaneously, filed a pre-negotiated plan of reorganization (as amended, the "Reorganization Plan" or "Plan") in an effort to permanently resolve Leslie's exposure to asbestos-related product liability actions. On February 7, 2011, the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Delaware (the "District Court") affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's earlier order confirming Leslie's Reorganization Plan, thus clearing the way for Leslie to emerge from bankruptcy. On April 28, 2011, pursuant to the terms of the Reorganization Plan, Leslie and CIRCOR contributed $76.6 million in cash and a $1 million promissory note (the "Note") to fund the Leslie Controls Asbestos Trust (the "Trust"), and Leslie emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Under the terms of the Plan, all current and future asbestos related claims against Leslie, as well as all current and future derivative claims against CIRCOR, are now permanently channeled to the Trust, and the only remaining financial obligation of Leslie and CIRCOR is payment of the Note. On September 30, 2011, the District Court entered an order for the final decree closing the Chapter 11 case. "Leslie recorded an estimated liability associated with reported asbestos claims when it believed that a loss was both probable and could be reasonably estimated. By the fourth quarter of 2009 it was determined that Leslie had claims experience sufficient to provide a reasonable estimate of the liability associated not only with Leslie's open asbestos claims but also with respect to future claims. As a result, during the fourth quarter of 2009, Leslie recorded an additional $39.8 million to its asbestos liability accrual for the estimated indemnity costs associated with future claims anticipated to be filed during the next five years. Asbestos related defense costs continued to be expensed as incurred and were not included in any future claim reserves. During 2010, as a result of Leslie's Bankruptcy Filing and Reorganization Plan, we accrued liabilities based on the terms of the Reorganization Plan. As of December 31, 2010, we therefore recorded net Leslie asbestos and bankruptcy liabilities for resolution of pending and future claims of $79.8 million (all classified as a current liability). As of December 31, 2011, the net liability decreased by $78.8 million with the funding of the Trust on April 28, 2011 and settlement of outstanding insurance recoveries as well as claim indemnity and defense cost liabilities. The remaining $1.0 million payable to the Trust is expected to be made during 2012. "A summary of Leslie's accrued liabilities, including contributions to the Trust under the Reorganization Plan for existing and future asbestos claims as well as incurred but unpaid asbestos defense cost liabilities and the related insurance recoveries: As of December 31 In Thousands 2011 2010 2009 ---- ---- ---- Existing claim indemnity liability $0 $64 $57,716 Amounts payable to 524(g) trust 1,000 77,625 0 Incurred defense cost liability 0 2,142 2,544 Insurance recoveries receivable 0 (38) (4,614) Net Leslie asbestos and bankruptcy liability $1,000 $79,793 $55,646 "The table provides information regarding Leslie's pre-tax asbestos and bankruptcy related costs (recoveries) for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009. The $0.7 million of net charges in 2011 is the result of additional bankruptcy related costs incurred, partially offset by lower actual defense related expenses than previously anticipated: For the Year Ended December 31 (In Thousands) 2011 2010 2009 ---- ---- ---- Indemnity costs accrued (filed cases) $0 $2,496 $7,861 Five year future indemnity cost accrued 0 0 39,800 Adverse verdict interest costs (verdict appealed) 0 (2,390) (1,026) Defense cost incurred (recovered) (306) 7,501 12,312 Insurance recoveries adjustment 0 (3,652) 2,069 Insurance recoveries accrued 0 (2,627) (6,937) Bankruptcy related costs 982 31,447 0 --------- --------- --------- Net pre-tax Leslie asbestos and bankruptcy expense $676 $32,775 $54,079 --------- --------- --------- "Smaller numbers of asbestos-related claims have also been filed against two of our other subsidiaries -- Spence Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we acquired in 1984; and Hoke Incorporated ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired in 1998. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets they serve and our historical experience in resolving these claims, we do not believe that asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of Spence or Hoke, or the financial condition, consolidated results of operations or liquidity of the Company." CIRCOR International, Inc., is a spin-off of its former parent, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., formerly known as Watts Industries, Inc. CIRCOR designs, manufactures and markets valves and other highly engineered products and sub-systems used in the energy, aerospace and industrial markets. It has a global presence and operate 24 primary manufacturing facilities that are located in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and the People's Republic of China. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria's Conditional Obligations Reach $10MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.'s conditional asset retirement obligations reached $10,215,000 at December 31, 2011, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Some of Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.'s properties may contain asbestos which, under certain conditions, requires remediation. Although the Company believes that the asbestos is appropriately contained in accordance with environmental regulations, its practice is to remediate the asbestos upon the development or redevelopment of the affected property. The Company recognizes a liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation (including asbestos) when the fair value of the liability can be reasonably estimated. In addition, for certain properties, the Company has not recognized an asset retirement obligation when there is an indeterminate settlement date for the obligation because the period in which the Company may remediate the obligation may not be estimated with any level of precision to provide for a meaningful estimate of the retirement obligation. At December 31, 2011, the Company's conditional asset retirement obligations reached $10,215,000. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., is the largest owner and preeminent REIT, and leading life science real estate company, focused principally on science-driven cluster development through the ownership, operation, management, selective acquisition, development, and redevelopment of properties containing life science laboratory space. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $10M Accrued Liability at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., each reported an accrued liability of $10 million for asbestos suits, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against Consolidated Edison, Inc., and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2010, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is $10 million. The estimate was based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Actual experience may be materially different. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate agreements, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. The accrued liability for asbestos suits and workers' compensation proceedings (including those related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts deferred as regulatory assets for the Companies at December 31, 2011 were: Con Edison CECONY (millions of dollars) 2011 2011 ---------- ------ Accrued liability - asbestos suits $10 $10 Regulatory assets - asbestos suits 10 10 Accrued liability - workers' compensation 98 93 Regulatory assets - workers' compensation 23 23 The Companies identified future asset retirement obligations associated with the removal of asbestos and asbestos-containing material in their buildings and equipment within the generating stations and substations, and within the steam and gas distribution systems. The Companies also identified asset retirement obligations relating to gas pipelines abandoned in place. The estimates of future liabilities were developed using historical information, and where available, quoted prices from outside contractors. The obligation for the cost of asbestos removal from the Companies' generating stations and substation structures was not accrued since the retirement dates cannot be reasonably estimated. At December 31, 2011, the liabilities of Con Edison and CECONY for the fair value of their legal asset retirement obligations were $145 million, as compared with $109 million at December 31, 2010. In addition, Con Edison and CECONY increased utility plant, net of accumulated depreciation, for asset retirement costs at December 31, 2011 by $38 million, as compared with $18 million at December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the accounting rules for regulated operations, CECONY also recorded a reduction of $107 million and $91 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, to the regulatory liability associated with cost of removal to reflect accumulated depreciation and interest accretion costs. Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc. has two regulated utility subsidiaries: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R). CECONY provides electric service and gas service in New York City and Westchester County. ASBESTOS UPDATE: $49.6MM Remains Due Under Cooper's Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries plc remains liable for $49.6 million in remaining payments due under a settlement agreement, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. In October 1998 Cooper sold its Automotive Products business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued businesses (including the Abex Friction product line obtained from Pneumo- Abex Corporation ("Pneumo") in 1994) were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated August 17, 1998 ("1998 Agreement"). In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified Cooper for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies, including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line and any potential liability that Cooper may have to Pneumo pursuant to a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement (the "Mutual Guaranty") between Cooper and Pneumo. On October 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in December 2007. As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, Cooper and Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that was subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal-Mogul's indemnification obligations to Cooper. On September 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling denying Cooper's participation in the proposed Federal-Mogul 524(g) trust resulting in Cooper implementing the previously approved Plan B Settlement, where Cooper continued to resolve through the tort system the asbestos related claims arising from the Abex Friction product line that it had sold to Federal-Mogul in 1998. On February 1, 2011, Cooper entered into a settlement agreement that closed on April 5, 2011, resolving Cooper's liability under the Mutual Guaranty with Pneumo. As a result of the April 2011 settlement the Company and its subsidiaries have no further obligations under the Mutual Guaranty. Under the settlement agreement, a subsidiary of Cooper will make payments to the Settlement Trust totaling $307.5 million ($250 million was paid at closing and the remainder is due in installments over four years, subject to certain adjustments). Cooper made the $250 million initial payment to the Settlement Trust on April 5, 2011. Other payments due under the settlement agreement total approximately $49.6 million, after certain reductions for indemnity and defense payments made by Cooper subsequent to the February 1, 2011 settlement agreement and prior to the closing on April 5, 2011. At December 31, 2011, the remaining payments are due in installments in April of each year as follows: $9.1 million in 2012, $17.0 million in 2013, and $11.75 million in each of 2014 and 2015. Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Cooper Industries plc is a global electrical products manufacturer with 2010 revenues of US$5.1 billion. The Company has seven operating divisions with leading market positions and world-class products and brands including: Bussmann electrical and electronic fuses; Crouse-Hinds and CEAG explosion-proof electrical equipment; Halo and Metalux lighting fixtures; and Kyle and McGraw-Edison power systems products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Remains a Defendant in Filter Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc., by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. As of February 9, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 42 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc., was a defendant in two Filter Cases, including one that also names Lorillard Tobacco, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Since January 1, 2010, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $18.5 million in settlements to finally resolve 70 claims, including the Lenney case. The related expense was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income. Since January 1, 2010, verdicts have been returned in three Filter Cases, Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al., which was tried in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Lenney v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., tried in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, and McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky. The jury in the Cox case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their appeal to the California Court of Appeals and the Cox case is concluded. In the Lenney trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims for compensatory damages and damages for loss of consortium, but it determined that plaintiffs were not entitled to an award of punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco or Hollingsworth & Vose. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter material. The final judgment entered by the trial court awarded plaintiffs a total of approximately $1.1 million in compensatory damages, damages for loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose have noticed an appeal to the California Court of Appeals. In 2012, Lorillard Tobacco reached agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve plaintiffs' pending claims, and any claims they might assert in the future, for an amount that is included in the total for settlements reached since January 1, 2010. The jury in the McGuire case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. As of February 9, 2012, the deadline for plaintiff to seek post-trial relief or to appeal had not expired. As of February 9, 2012, ten Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to change. Lorillard is the third largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States. Founded in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco company in the United States. The Company maintains its headquarters and manufacture all of its products at its Greensboro, North Carolina facility. ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS International Still a Defendant in PI Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- TMS International Corp. and its former subsidiaries have been and may in the future be subject to asbestos-related personal injury claims. Its former landfill and waste management business, together with two non-operating subsidiaries of IU International Corporation ("IU"), were spun off to the stockholders of its Predecessor Company in October 2002. The two former subsidiaries of IU were subject to asbestos-related personal injury claims. The Company believes that it has no obligations 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 businesses that were discontinued over 20 years ago. Although the Company has various indemnities, contractual protections, insurance coverage and legal defenses with respect to asbestos-related claims related to these former lines of business, the Company may be liable for those claims if the indemnities and contractual protections fail, if its insurance coverage is exhausted or if a court does not recognize its legal defenses, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2011. TMS International Corp., through its subsidiaries including Tube City IMS, is the largest provider of outsourced industrial services to steel mills in North America and has a substantial and growing international presence. The company provides services at 82 customer sites in 11 countries and operates a global raw materials procurement network. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Continue to Defend PI Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company's subsidiaries continue to defend themselves against asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-containing components such as gaskets and packings purchased from third-party suppliers. The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. At December 31, 2011, over 90 percent of the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims. The Company's liability for asbestos-related matters and the asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries are included in these balance sheet accounts: In millions December 31, 2011 2010 ---- ---- Accrued expenses & other current liabilities $69.7 $75.5 Other noncurrent liabilities 868.6 945.0 Total asbestos-related liabilities $938.3 $1,020.5 Other current assets $23.5 $26.3 Other noncurrent assets 298.9 319.9 Total asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries $322.4 $346.2 The (costs) income associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries, for the years ended December 31, were: In millions 2011 2010 2009 ---- ---- ---- Continuing operations $(1.2) $(1.4) $13.8 Discontinued operations (8.9) (17.4) (1.5) Total $(10.1) $(18.8) $12.3 The Company records certain income and expenses associated with its asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in 2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded within continuing operations. On January 12, 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies that have been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims that are not subject to any settlement agreement. Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most of its insurers, including the New Jersey litigation. The settlements collectively account for approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related liability insurance receivable as of December 31, 2011. Most of Trane's settlement agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. In April 1999, Trane filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers (the NJ Litigation). The NJ Litigation originally sought coverage for environmental claims and later was expanded to include claims for coverage for asbestos-related liabilities. The environmental claims against the insurers in the NJ Litigation have been resolved or dismissed without prejudice for later resolution. Similarly, Trane has resolved all claims against the insurers for asbestos-related liabilities, having settled with the last remaining defendant in the NJ Litigation, effective June 29, 2011. By order entered on August 3, 2011, the court in the NJ Litigation dismissed the last remaining claims by or against Trane. Trane remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November 2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin, relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's historical asbestos-related liabilities. Trane also is pursuing claims against the estates of insolvent insurers in connection with its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently available information. The Company's actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over many years and from many different carriers, is substantial. However, limitations in that coverage are expected to result in the projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable insurance recovery. Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Company continues to face asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches, and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Along with other vehicle manufacturers, the Company has been the target of asbestos litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford parts and other products containing asbestos. Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in its facilities, or asbestos aboard its former maritime fleet. The Company believes that it is being targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits because many previously-targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy. Most of the asbestos litigation the Company face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of its vehicles over the years. The Company is prepared to defend these cases, and believe that the scientific evidence confirms its long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on its vehicles. The extent of the Company's financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include both compensatory and punitive damage awards. The majority of its asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding one hundred. Many of these cases also involve multiple plaintiffs, and often the Company is unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making claims against it (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future. Ford Motor Company (Ford) is a producer of cars and trucks. The Company and its subsidiaries also engage in other businesses, including financing vehicles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Faces 12,000 Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------- FMC Corporation had approximately 12,000 premises and product asbestos claims pending in several jurisdictions at December 31, 2011, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Like hundreds of other industrial companies, the Company has been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued operations. The machinery and equipment businesses the Company owned or operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these components. Further, the asbestos- containing parts for this machinery and equipment were accessible only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. A few jurisdictions have permitted claims to proceed against equipment manufacturers relating to insulation installed by other companies on such machinery and equipment. The Company believes that, overall, the claims against FMC are without merit. As of December 31, 2011, there were approximately 12,000 premises and product asbestos claims pending against FMC in several jurisdictions. Since the 1980s, the Company has had discharged approximately 100,000 asbestos claims against FMC, the overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed without any payment to the plaintiff. Settlements by the Company with claimants since that time have totaled approximately $43.6 million. The Company intends to continue managing these cases in accordance with its historical experience. The Company has established a reserve for this litigation within its discontinued operations and believes that any exposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company's experience has been that the overall trends in terms of the rate of filing of asbestos-related claims with respect to all potential defendants has changed over time, and that filing rates as to the Company in particular have varied significantly over the last several years. The Company is a peripheral defendant -- that is, it has never manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing components. As a result, claim filing rates against the Company has yet to form a predictable pattern, and it is unable to project a reasonably accurate future filing rate and thus, it is presently unable to reasonably estimate its asbestos liability with respect to claims that may be filed in the future. FMC Corporation, a chemical company, provides solutions, applications, and products for agricultural, consumer, and industrial markets. The company was founded in 1884 and is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had 746 Open Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corporation had 746 open occupational and asbestos claims at the end of 2011, according to the Company's February 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2011. Casualty reserves represent accruals for personal injury, occupational injury and asbestos claims. During 2010, the Company increased its self-insured retention amount for these claims from $25 million to $50 million per injury for claims occurring on or after June 1, 2010. Currently, no individual claim is expected to exceed the self-insured retention amount. To the extent the value of an individual claim exceeds the self-insured retention amount, the Company would present the liability on a gross basis with a corresponding receivable for insurance recoveries. These reserves fluctuate based upon the timing of payments as well as changes in independent third-party estimates, which are reviewed by management. Actual results may vary from estimates due to the number, type and severity of the injury, costs of medical treatments and uncertainties in litigation. Most of the claims relate to CSXT unless otherwise noted. Defense and processing costs, which historically have been insignificant and are anticipated to be insignificant in the future, are not included in the recorded liabilities. During 2011, there were no significant changes in estimate recorded to adjust casualty reserves. During 2010, the Company reduced casualty reserves by $49 million, resulting in an after- tax effect on earnings from continuing operations and net earnings of $30 million and an after-tax effect on earnings per share of $0.03. Occupational & Asbestos Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposures to certain materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals (collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss. The Company is also party to a number of asbestos claims by employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The heaviest possible exposure for employees resulted from work conducted in and around steam locomotive engines that were largely phased out beginning around the 1950s. Other types of exposures, however, including exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued until these exposures were substantially eliminated by 1985. Additionally, the Company has retained liability for asbestos claims filed against its previously owned international container shipping business. Diseases associated with asbestos typically have long latency periods (amount of time between exposure to a disease and the onset of the disease) which can range from 10 to 40 years after exposure. An analysis of occupational claims is performed quarterly by an independent third-party actuarial firm and reviewed by management. Management performs a quarterly review of asserted asbestos claims, and an analysis is performed annually by an independent third-party specialist and reviewed by management. The objective of the occupational and asbestos claims analyses performed by the third-party actuarial firm and specialist is to determine the number of incurred but not reported ("IBNR") claims. With the exception of carpal tunnel, management has determined that seven years is the most probable time period in which unasserted claim filings and claim values can be estimated. Carpal tunnel claims use a three-year period to estimate the reserve due to the shorter latency period for these types of injuries. The third party specialists analyze CSXT's historical claim filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal rates to determine future anticipated claim filing rates and average settlement values for occupational and asbestos claims reserves. The potentially exposed population is estimated by using CSX's employment records and industry data. From this analysis, the third-party specialists provide an estimate of the IBNR claims liability. Undiscounted liabilities recorded related to occupational and asbestos claims were: (Dollars in Millions) December 2011 December 2010 ------------- ------------- Occupational: Incurred but not reported claims $26 $25 Asserted claims 17 15 Total liability $43 $40 Asbestos: Incurred but not reported claims $42 $40 Asserted claims 26 41 Total liability $68 $81 A summary of occupational and asbestos claims activity is: Fiscal Years 2011 2010 ---- ---- Asserted Claims Open Claims - Beginning of Year 1,376 3,782 New Claims Filed 224 250 Claims Settled (370) (287) Claims Dismissed (484) (2,369) Open Claims - End of Year 746 1,376 During 2011, there were no significant changes in estimate of occupational or asbestos reserves. During 2010, the Company reduced occupational reserves by $12 million primarily attributable to a decrease in the number of repetitive stress injury claims and lower settlement values for irritant claims. Also during 2010, the Company reduced its reserves for asbestos claims by $13 million, primarily related to claims that were determined to have no value due to lack of sufficient medical evidence. Adjustments in reserves are included in materials, supplies and other in the consolidated income statements. CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides rail- based transportation services. It offers traditional rail service and the transport of intermodal containers and trailers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Host Hotels Records $3MM Liability --------------------------------------------------- Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., and Host Hotels & Resorts, L.P., acquired two properties with environmental liabilities, primarily asbestos in non-public areas of the properties, for which they have recorded the present value of the liability, or approximately $3 million. The amount is based on management's estimate of the timing and future costs to remediate the liability. The Company will record the accretion expense over the period it intends to hold the hotel or until the item is remediated, according to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. is a publicly owned real estate investment trust (REIT). The firm primarily engages in the ownership and operation of hotel properties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Power's Removal Cost Estimated at $300,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporation's subsidiary estimates liability for removal of asbestos at $300,000 at the end of 2011, according to the Company's February 22, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Under the authoritative guidance for asset retirement and environmental obligations, Cleco Power determined that a liability exists for cleanup and closing costs of solid waste facilities associated with its generating stations that use lignite and coal for fuel. Applying these guidelines, Cleco Power determined that a liability exists for costs which may be incurred in the future for removal of asbestos from its general service buildings, the removal of transmission towers on leased right-of-ways and for the abatement of PCBs in transformers. At December 31, 2011, and 2010, the liability for solid waste facility closure costs at the generating station using lignite is estimated at $0.5 million and is included in other deferred credits. At December 31, 2011, and 2010, Cleco Power's liability for removal of asbestos is estimated at $0.3 million and also is included in other deferred credits. Cleco Corp. is a regional energy provider headquartered in Pineville, Louisiana. It has two primary businesses: Cleco Power, a regulated electric utility that serves approximately 279,000 customers in Louisiana, and Cleco Midstream, a competitive wholesale generation business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings' ARO at Dec. 31 Was $18.1 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- As of December 31, 2011, UIL Holdings Corporation's Asset Retirement Obligations, including estimated conditional AROs, was $18.1 million and consisted primarily of obligations related to the removal or retirement of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated equipment, gas pipeline and cast iron gas mains. The long-lived assets associated with the AROs are gas storage property, distribution property and other property. As of December 31, 2010, UIL Holdings' ARO was $17.8 million. No further asbestos-related updates were reported in the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. UIL Holdings Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates in the energy sector in the United States. The company, through its subsidiary, The United Illuminating Company, engages in the transmission and delivery of electricity to its customers in 17 municipalities in southwest Connecticut. UIL Holdings Corporation, through its Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation and The Southern Connecticut Gas Company subsidiaries operates as a natural gas distribution company in Connecticut; and through The Berkshire Gas Company subsidiary operates as a natural gas distribution company in western Massachusetts. These subsidiaries operate in 63 cities and towns in Connecticut and western Massachusetts. The company was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Cases vs. Fluor Corp. Have Decreased ------------------------------------------------------------- The number of pending asbestos-related cases against Fluor Corporation has decreased over the past year, according to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The company is a defendant in various lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos fibers and dust due to work that the company may have performed at various locations. The company has substantial third party insurance coverage to cover a significant portion of existing and any potential cost, settlements or judgments. No material provision has been made for any present or future claims and, based upon the Company's historical experience with these types of claims and an analysis of the pending claims, the company does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that any potential losses arising from these claims would have a material adverse impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Over the past year, the number of pending asbestos-related cases has decreased. This decrease reflects the dismissal or settlement of a number of cases against the company as well as a decline in the number of cases filed against the company during the year. In addition, the cases resolved by the company during the year involved little or no payment by the company. Fluor Corporation is a holding company. It is a professional services company providing engineering, procurement, construction and maintenance, as well as project management services on a global basis. Fluor serves a diverse set of industries worldwide, including oil and gas, chemicals and petrochemicals, transportation, mining and metals, power, life sciences and manufacturing. It is also a primary service provider to the United Services federal government. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITC Holdings Records $3.6MM ARO at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- ITC Holdings Corp. recorded asset retirement obligations of $3.6 million at the end of 2011, according to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company has identified conditional asset retirement obligations primarily associated with the removal of equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") and asbestos. The Company records a liability at fair value for a legal asset retirement obligation in the period in which it is incurred. When a new legal obligation is recorded, the Company capitalizes the costs of the liability by increasing the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. The Company accretes the liability to its present value each period and depreciate the capitalized cost over the useful life of the related asset. At the end of the asset's useful life, the Company settles the obligation for its recorded amount or incur a gain or loss. The standards for asset retirement obligation applied to the Company's Regulated Operating Subsidiaries require it to recognize regulatory assets or liabilities for the timing differences between when the recovers legal asset retirement obligations in rates and when it would recognize these costs under the standards. There have not been any significant changes to the Company's asset retirement obligations in 2011. The Company's asset retirement obligations as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 of $3.6 million and $3.3 million, respectively, are included in other liabilities. ITC Holdings Corp. (NYSE: ITC) is the nation's largest independent electricity transmission company. Based in Novi, Michigan, ITC invests in the electric transmission grid to improve system reliability, expand access to markets, lower the overall cost of delivered energy and allow new generating resources to interconnect to its transmission systems. ITC's regulated operating subsidiaries include ITCTransmission, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, ITC Midwest and ITC Great Plains. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket's Undiscounted Liability Is $11MM ------------------------------------------------------------ NewMarket Corporation has provided an undiscounted liability related to premises asbestos claims of $11 million at year-end 2011, according to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. The Company has never manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos. Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple defendants. The Company maintains an accrual for these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected insurance recoveries. During 2005, the Company entered into an agreement with Travelers Indemnity Company resolving certain long-standing issues regarding its coverage for certain premises asbestos claims. In addition, the Company's agreement with Travelers provides a procedure for allocating defense and indemnity costs with respect to certain future premises asbestos claims. The lawsuit the Company had previously filed against Travelers in the Southern District of Texas was dismissed. The Company also settled its outstanding receivable from Albemarle Corporation for certain premises asbestos liability obligations. The Company has provided an undiscounted liability related to premises asbestos claims of $11 million at year-end 2011 and $14 million at year-end 2010. The liabilities related to asbestos claims are included in accrued expenses (current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these costs are recoverable through the Company's insurance coverage and agreement with Albemarle Corporation. The receivable for these recoveries related to premises asbestos liabilities was $7 million at December 31, 2011 and $10 million at December 31, 2010. These receivables are included in trade and other accounts receivable, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the current portion. The noncurrent portion is included in other assets and deferred charges. NewMarket Corporation is the parent company of Afton Chemical Corporation and Ethyl Corporation. Afton Chemical develops and manufactures petroleum additives that enhance the performance of lubricating oils and fuels. Ethyl Corporation manufactures diesel cetane improver and gasoline performance additives. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Remains a Defendant in PI Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as internal components of process equipment, and the Company does not believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. According to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, Flowserve's practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims, and the Company has been successful in resolving a majority of claims with little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other companies, and the Company believes that a substantial majority of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a liability for its estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers or other companies for its estimated recovery, to the extent it believes that the amounts of recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these claims could have a material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, the Company currently believes the likelihood is remote. In one asbestos insurance related matter, the Company has a claim in litigation against relevant insurers substantially in excess of the recorded receivable. If its claim is resolved more favorably than reflected in this receivable, the Company would benefit from a one-time gain in the amount of such excess. The Company is currently unable to estimate the impact, if any, of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims would also be subject to existing indemnities and insurance coverage. Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service provider of comprehensive flow control systems. Flowserve develops and manufactures precision-engineered flow control equipment integral to the movement, control and protection of the flow of materials. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had 8,072 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation had 8,072 pending asbestos claims at the end of 2011, according to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company continues to receive asbestos and environmental claims. Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who were exposed to asbestos or products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs. The Company's exposure to asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims arises principally from assumed reinsurance coverage written during the 1960s through the mid-1980s, including reinsurance on primary insurance written on large U.S. companies, and from direct excess insurance written from 1972 through 1985, including substantial excess general liability coverages on large U.S. companies. Additional exposure stems from direct primary commercial insurance written during the 1960s through the mid-1980s. Other discontinued lines exposures primarily relate to general liability and product liability mass tort claims, such as those for medical devices and other products. Underwriting losses of $25 million in 2011 related to a $26 million unfavorable reestimate of asbestos reserves and a $5 million unfavorable reestimate of other reserves, primarily as a result of the Company's annual review using established industry and actuarial best practices, partially offset by a $26 million decrease of its allowance for future uncollectible reinsurance and environmental reserves essentially unchanged. The cost of administering claims settlements totaled $11 million in 2011 and $13 million for each of 2010 and 2009. The Company may continue to experience asbestos and/or environmental losses in the future. These losses could be due to the potential adverse impact of new information relating to new and additional claims or the impact of resolving unsettled claims based on unanticipated events such as litigation or legislative, judicial and regulatory actions. Environmental losses may also increase as the result of additional funding for environmental site cleanup. Because of its annual review, the Company believes that its reserves are appropriately established based on available information, technology, laws and regulations. The Company continues to be encouraged that the pace of industry asbestos claim activity has slowed, perhaps reflecting various state legislative and judicial actions with respect to medical criteria and increased legal scrutiny of the legitimacy of claims. Reserve additions for asbestos in 2011 totaling $26 million were primarily for products related coverage due to increases for the assumed reinsurance portion of discontinued lines where the Company is reliant on its ceding companies to report claims. During the last three years, 57 direct primary and excess policyholders reported new claims, and claims of 75 policyholders were closed, decreasing the number of active policyholders by 18 during the period. The 18 decrease comprised (4) from 2011, 1 from 2010 and (15) from 2009. The decrease of 4 from 2011 included 16 new policyholders reporting new claims and the closing of 20 policyholders' claims. Pending, new, total closed and closed without payment claims for asbestos and environmental exposures for the years ended December 31, are summarized in the table: Number of Asbestos Claims 2011 2010 2009 ---- ---- ---- Pending, beginning of year 8,421 8,252 8,780 New 507 788 814 Total closed (856) (619) (1,342) Pending, end of year 8,072 8,421 8,252 ===== ===== ===== Closed without payment 664 336 469 ===== ===== ===== The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the personal property and casualty insurance, life insurance, and retirement and investment products business primarily in the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still a Defendant in 2,321 Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mine Safety Appliances Company is presently named as a defendant in 2,321 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica, asbestos, or coal dust, according to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The Company categorizes the product liability losses that it experiences into two main categories, single incident and cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are discrete incidents that are typically known to the Company when they occur and involve observable injuries and, therefore, more quantifiable damages. Therefore, the Company maintains a reserve for single incident product liability claims based on expected settlement costs for pending claims and an estimate of costs for unreported claims derived from experience, sales volumes and other relevant information. The Company's reserve for single incident product liability claims was $4.7 million and $5.2 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Single incident product liability expense during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $1.5 million, $0.2 million and $0.5 million, respectively. The Company evaluates its single incident product liability exposures on an ongoing basis and make adjustments to the reserve as new information becomes available. Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. The Company is presently named as a defendant in 2,321 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company. The Company is unable to estimate total damages sought in these lawsuits as they generally do not specify the injuries alleged or the amount of damages sought, and potentially involve multiple defendants. Mine Safety Appliances Company engages in the development, manufacture, and supply of products that protect people's health and safety in the fire service, homeland security, oil and gas, construction, and other industries, as well as military worldwide. Its safety products integrate a combination of electronics, mechanical systems, and materials to protect users against hazardous or life threatening situations. The company offers respiratory protection products and portable and fixed gas detection instruments comprising single- and multi-gas hand-held detectors, multi-point permanently installed gas detection systems, and flame detectors and open-path infrared gas detectors. It also provides thermal imaging cameras for the fire service market. Mine Safety Appliances Company was founded in 1914 and is based in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loews' CNA Unit Still Exposed to Asbestos Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Loews Corporation's subsidiary, CNA Financial Corporation, remains exposed to asbestos and environmental pollution claims, according to the Company's February 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. CNA's property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposures related to A&EP claims. CNA's experience has been that establishing claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for casualty coverages relating to A&EP claims are subject to uncertainties that are greater than those presented by other claims. Additionally, traditional actuarial methods and techniques employed to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional property and casualty exposures are less precise in estimating claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for A&EP. As a result, estimating the ultimate cost of both reported and unreported A&EP claims is subject to a higher degree of variability. On August 31, 2010, CNA completed a retroactive reinsurance transaction under which substantially all of its legacy A&EP liabilities were ceded to National Indemnity Company ("NICO"), a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., subject to an aggregate limit of $4.0 billion ("Loss Portfolio Transfer"). If the other parties to the Loss Portfolio Transfer do not fully perform their obligations, CNA's liabilities for A&EP claims covered by the Loss Portfolio Transfer exceed the aggregate limit of $4.0 billion, or CNA determines it has exposures to A&EP claims not covered by the Loss Portfolio Transfer, CNA may need to increase its recorded net reserves which would result in a charge against CNA's earnings. These charges could be substantial. Loews Corporation is one of the largest diversified holding companies in the United States, with five operating subsidiaries: CNA Financial Corporation, one of the largest U.S. commercial property-casualty insurers; Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., one of the world's largest offshore drilling companies; HighMount Exploration & Production LLC, a domestic natural gas exploration and production company; Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, an operator of interstate natural gas pipeline systems; and Loews Hotels, one of the country's top luxury lodging companies. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Ct. Dismisses Complaint v. GE, et al. ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Frederick J. Martone of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, in a March 7, 2012 order granted the motion to dismiss filed by defendants in the asbestos case, Linda Aguirre; Norma J. Garcia, Plaintiffs, v. Amchem Products Inc.; Certainteed Corp.; DB Riley Inc.; Foster Wheeler Corp.; General Electric Co.; Georgia Pacific Corp.; Goulds Pumps Inc.; Honeywell International Inc.; Ingersoll-Rand Co.; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Union Carbide Corp., Defendants, No. CV 11-01907-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz.). The Court agreed with the Defendants' argument that the causes of action are not identified, the only factual allegations in the complaint refer to companies that are not defendants, and no information regarding the time period, location, or objects of asbestos exposure is provided. A copy of the Judge Martone's Decision is available at http://is.gd/kVd8sJfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Ct. Reverses Dismissal of Whipkey Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Marilyn Whipkey, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William Whipkey, appeals a trial court's decision granting defendants-appellees' motion to administratively dismiss her complaint. Finding merit to the appeal, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, in a March 8, 2012 order reversed and remanded the ruling. The Appellate Court held that Marilyn -- by submitting hospital records documenting William's diagnosis of lung cancer, history of smoking, and asbestos exposure, and reports from competent medical authority -- provided ample evidence demonstrating William's occupational asbestos exposure was a substantial factor in causing his lung cancer. The case is Marilyn Whipkey, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William Whipkey, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 96672 (Ohio). A copy of the March 8 Decision is available at http://is.gd/Hj0dbW from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Ct. Junks Suit v. Crane Co. ------------------------------------------------- Judge John A. Parkins, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, in a March 12, 2012 memorandum opinion granted summary judgment in favor of Crane Co., individually and as successor to Chapman Valve Co., after finding that Crane does not owe a duty to Ralph Curtis Wolfe for asbestos-containing parts used with or added to its products after sale and that Mr. Wolfe was not exposed to original asbestos-containing parts of Crane's products. Judge Parkins found that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that Crane's asbestos was in Mr. Wolfe's workplace. Mr. Wolfe, the Court noted, did not know whether any of the valves on which he worked contained original asbestos- containing components. There is no evidence as to the type of valves on which Mr. Wolfe actually worked and, most importantly, there is no evidence that Crane's valve's original asbestos- containing parts were present in Mr. Wolfe's work area, the Court concluded. The case is In Re Asbestos Litigation: Ralph Curtis Wolfe and Janice Wolfe. Limited to: Crane Co, C.A. No. N10C-08-258 ASB (Del.). A copy of Judge Parkins' Decision is available at http://is.gd/51oDKlfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Must Show Source of Coverage ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, in a memorandum dated March 6, 2012, denied Porter Hayden Company's motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA and American Home Assurance Company bear the burden of demonstrating that a claim falls under the completed operations hazard, and thus is subject to an aggregate limit on liability. The Court agreed with the Insurers that it is incumbent upon Porter Hayden to establish the source of coverage for claims as part of its prima facie case. Insofar as Porter Hayden argues that it was conducting operations that resulted in the release of asbestos fibers, like "tie-in" operations or asbestos removal operations, during the relevant policy periods, then the burden is on Porter Hayden to prove that, Judge Blake ruled. The case is National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, et al v. Porter Hayden Company, Civil No. CCB-03-3408 (D. Md.). A copy of Judge Blake's Decision is available at http://is.gd/T2cef9from Leagle.com. Porter Hayden is represented by: Robert Eric Johnston, Esq. Donald Robertson McMinn, Esq. Marc S. Mayerson, Esq. Stephanie D. David, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LLP 1350 I Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 898-5800 Fax: (202) 682-1639 E-mail: rjohnston@hollingsworthllp.com dmcminn@hollingsworthllp.com National Union is represented: Timothy R Dingilian, Esq. Kristen Clare Vine, Esq. Brian Charles Malone, Esq. JACKSON AND CAMPBELL PC One Lafayette Centre, South Tower 1120 20th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036-3437 Tel: (202) 457-1600 Fax: (202) 457-1678 E-mail: tdingilian@jackscamp.com kvine@jackscamp.com bmalone@jackscamp.com American Home Assurance is represented by: Timothy R. Dingilian, Esq. Kristen Clare Vine, Esq. Brian Charles Malone, Esq. JACKSON AND CAMPBELL PC One Lafayette Centre, South Tower 1120 20th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036-3437 Tel: (202) 457-1600 Fax: (202) 457-1678 -- and -- David C. Austin, Esq. MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON ANELLO AND BOHRER PC 565 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 856-9600 Fax: (212) 856-9494 E-mail: daustin@maglaw.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Not Entitled to Liability Reduction ------------------------------------------------------------- In a March 6, 2012 memorandum, Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion for partial summary judgment filed by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and American Home Assurance Company finding that the measure of the Insurers' indemnification liability is not limited to the percentage paid out to the claimants. In their motion, the Insurers argue they are obligated to indemnify the Porter Hayden Bodily Injury Trust only for the actual sums which the Trust pays out to claimants. In other words, the Insurers seek a declaration from the Court that the amount of their indemnification obligation should be substantially reduced from the full value of the claims to the specific sums which the PHBIT is able to distribute to claimants. Porter Hayden Company, by contrast, contends it is entitled to indemnification in the gross amount of allowed value of claims to the Trust. The case is National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, et al v. Porter Hayden Company, Civil No. CCB-03-3408 (D. Md.). A copy of Judge Blake's Decision is available at http://is.gd/rGwewafrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Refuses to Rule on Work-Related Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court for the New York County entered a decision and order dated March 5, 2012, holding in abeyance the motion filed by defendant David Fabricators of N.Y., Inc. s/h/a David Fabricators of New York, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it pending an application to the Workers' Compensation Board for a determination of the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine factual issues concerning whether an individual is covered by the WCL. Judge Heitler pointed out that the controlling authorities confirm that the Court should not express its opinion regarding the applicability of the WCL in these circumstances where the parties have failed to avail themselves of the expertise of the Workers' Compensation Board in the first instance. The case is Patricia Calamari, Plaintiffs, v. Bakers Pride Oven Co., et al., Defendants, 190186/10, Motion Seq. 001 (N.Y.). A copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/YgBwL2from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Steel Lawyer Calls John Crane "Plaintiff Foil" ------------------------------------------------------------------ Christina Stueve of The Madison / St. Clair Record reports that Moments before an asbestos case was set to go to trial in Madison County on March 6, lawyers for the two remaining defendants announced a settlement. Plaintiffs Dennis Kimball, Sr. and his wife Carla Kimball, both of Minnesota, filed suit less than a year ago on Aug. 1, 2011. A jury had already been selected to hear the Kimballs' mesothelioma case. John Crane, an international gasket maker with headquarters in the Chicago area, and Crane Company, an industrial products manufacturer based in Stamford, Conn., were the last two of 56 defendants to settle. Ed Burns -- ed.burns@djoalaw.com -- of O'Connell & Associates in Elgin, represented John Crane. Jeffrey King -- jeffrey.king@klgates.com -- of K&L Gates in Boston and Nicole Behnen -- nbehnen@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli Shughart in St. Louis represented Crane Co. "By the time we selected a jury, we were down to two Crane defendants with three lawyers," said Associate Judge Clarence Harrison. Ted Giarnaris -- tgianaris@simmonsfirm.com -- Nicholas Angelides and John Barnerd of the Simmons firm in Alton represented the plaintiffs. Dennis Kimball, Sr. had been employed from 1966 until 2011 as a millwright, power plant consultant and maintenance worker at various locations, including Illinois, his complaint stated. During his employment, he was exposed to asbestos coming from fibers he worked around. Kimball Sr. allegedly learned of his disease on May 11, 2011. Harrison did not disclose the terms of the settlement. John Crane, which also operates in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Russia, is typically named as a defendant in Madison County asbestos cases, particularly in cases where the plaintiff is from out of state. Critics have said that John Crane, an Illinois corporation, is repeatedly named as a defendant to establish that Madison County is an appropriate venue for out of state plaintiffs. An attorney for U.S. Steel, which was hit with a whopping $250 million verdict in 2003 (but later reduced), argued that John Crane was a "plaintiff foil" because its lawyers were seen conferring with the plaintiff's lawyers during jury selection. Again in 2005, a defense attorney said that the plaintiff attorney in a trial against General Electric made a "sweetheart deal" with John Crane by not presenting any evidence or listing any witnesses against John Crane. Burns declined to respond at the time. But his partner Dan O'Connell of O'Connell & Associates denied an improper relationship with asbestos plaintiffs. Madison County Case Number 11-L-743. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Halts Demolition on Contaminated House ------------------------------------------------------------- MyFoxPhilly relates that there is a huge headache for homeowners in one West Deptford, N.J., neighborhood. They are stuck with a half-demolished house that they say is dangerous! Mike Crowley has power of attorney over the owner of the house. He wanted to purchase and fully rehabilitate the home and then sell it. But late February, the township hired a contractor and began demolishing the house despite Crowley's claims that he had warned them the place was full of asbestos! In fact, Crowley gathered a sample of demolition debris from the yard and had it tested. Sure enough, the debris sample contained asbestos. The majority of all the cases you've heard about, over all the years of asbestos, the vast majority of them have been from inhalation of the dust. When you demolish a home, you are by definition generating that dust. A superior court judge has ordered demolition work be temporarily stopped while Crowley's asbestos allegations are investigated. As for the neighbors, they just wanted the vacant home torn down. They consider Crowley a troublemaker, and they don't buy his promise that he can rehab this place and sell it. None of them would share their views with us on camera, but as I related to Cowley, they did not seem overly concerned about the asbestos. A court hearing on the demolition of this house is set for next Friday, March 16. In the meantime, the place sits half- demolished, with asbestos debris scattered about. A dispute between Crowley and the township with neighbors stuck in the middle. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Debate Over Bill to Pay Off Widowed Families ------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Wood of The Daily Telegraph reports that Attorney-General Greg Smith provoked a screaming match in the lower house of NSW parliament on March 8, when he said the government would not support a "premature and opportunistic" bill to allow families of asbestos disease sufferers to claim for damages after death. The bill was brought on by the opposition, who argued the government had to implement recommendations from the October 2011 Law Reform Commission report into the compensation scheme. It suggested families should be able to claim for damages up to 12 months after a family member has died of an asbestos-related illness. In voting to refuse the bill, Mr. Smith said the opposition had "fallen over itself" to put it before parliament. He said the government supported asbestos victims, and would respond to the Law Reform Commission's recommendations based on "legal and actuarial assessments". Opposition leader John Robertson said the government had "turned its back" on the families of asbestos victims. "Asbestos victims and their families have a right to fair and reasonable compensation. Families of asbestos victims should not be further disadvantaged because their loved one passes away before their case is finalized," Mr. Robertson said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Visitors May Have Been Exposed in Corgi Hosiery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carmarthen Journal at thisissouthwales.co.uk reports that visitors to an Ammanford knitwear company may have been exposed to asbestos, a government body has found. Corgi Hosiery, based in New Road, Pantyffynnon, is said to the favorite sock maker of Prince Charles. But the firm was recently convicted of failing to protect employees from asbestos while work was being done to its factory roof -- a charge which will cost it GBP40,000. Following the conviction, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said it was not only the staff who were at risk, but that members of the public also could have been exposed to the potentially deadly substance. HSE inspector Anne Marie Orrells said: "Nowadays, the risks of exposure to asbestos are well known so this serious incident was inexcusable. "Corgi Hosiery should have ensured measures were taken to exclude employees and visitors from the area while the roof work was being carried out. "As a result of these failings, both workers and visitors to their premises were exposed to potentially deadly asbestos - containing materials." The firm was founded in 1892 by the great-grandfather of the current directors. Prince Charles visited the factory in 2010 after the asbestos situation had been resolved. Corgi's offence started in 2008 when its directors, Chris Jones and his sister Lisa Wood, carried out work to the factory roof. Knowing the building contained asbestos, Jones, 45, contracted out work to remove the potentially deadly substance to local firm Dragon Cladding. The HSE said employees had access to the building when this work was being done, with one worker based there throughout. It added that visitors to the factory could have entered the works area and were therefore potentially exposed to asbestos. The firm pleaded not guilty to the charges at Swansea Crown Court last month. But the jury found it guilty, and Judge Richard Twomlow fined it GBP25,000 with prosecution costs of GBP15,000 at a sentencing last week at Merthyr Crown Court. But Jones said he still had the full backing of his staff. "We are relieved the whole thing is behind us," he said. "I have just had a text from one of the staff saying: 'Glad it's over, and I for one am proud to wear my Corgi Hosiery shirt." Stuart Phillips, 25, of Manordeilo, Llangadog, the director of Dragon Cladding, pleaded guilty to failing to assess risks and to implement a safe system of work. He was sentenced in Merthyr, alongside Corgi, and fined GBP4,000 with costs of GBP1,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Mesothelioma Victims Plea on Government Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Paddy McGuffin at Morning Star Online reports hundreds of asbestosis sufferers across Britain are dying without proper compensation due to government inaction, a group of lawyers claimed. Figures obtained by not-for-profit campaign group Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) show that mesothelioma, a deadly asbestos-related lung cancer, was recorded as the underlying cause of 177 deaths in Scotland in 2010 compared with 149 deaths in 2006 and 140 in 2007. Many workers who develop the fatal disease are unable to pursue claims for damages because they can no longer trace the employers who exposed them to asbestos or the employers' insurance companies. The onset of symptoms often comes decades after a worker has inhaled asbestos fibers, during which time employers go out of business and insurance documents can be lost or destroyed. In 2010 the government pledged to establish a "fund of last resort" which would act as a safety net for those unable to obtain compensation as a result. APIL president David Bott said: "The government proposed to set up a fund of last resort shortly before the general election, but almost two years has now passed and nothing has been heard about it since. "Sick and dying workers who are prevented from bringing valid cases are left effectively subsidizing insurance companies which have taken the money in premiums but are not paying the compensation people need." Jim Sheridan MP, chairman of Parliament's all-party group on occupational safety and health, said: "Without the safety net of a fund of last resort sufferers can be left with no other way of obtaining the compensation which should at least give them some comfort in the last days of their life." The government promised in 2010 a consultation on establishing an employer liability database to help victims seek compensation - but again no further action has been taken. TUC head of health and safety Hugh Robertson said it was "appalling" that hundreds of people have died without getting the fair compensation they deserve due to government inaction." ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Takers for US Navy Facility Demolition Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Malone of The Pueblo Chieftain reports that two of lawmakers' chief arguments against funding the demolition of vacant, contaminated buildings near the Colorado State Fair pose a chicken-or-the-egg quandary. They say it is the federal government's responsibility, and that the Colorado Department of Agriculture has not made it a priority in its funding requests. But which came first? For a total cost of $1, the federal government rented the site at Northern and Acero avenues from the state between 1947 and 1997 to house the U.S. Naval and Marine reserves. "I can't get over the fact that we leased that to them for $1, and now we've got a $500,000 bill," said Rep. J. Paul Brown, R- Ignacio, who serves on the Capital Development Committee, which is mulling a $451,000 request to demolish the five vacant buildings that comprise the complex. A shooting range on the site is not being targeted for demolition. When the federal government vacated the buildings, some abatement of asbestos was done, but an assessment by the State Fair soon afterward showed unsafe levels of asbestos and lead paint. The Fair notified the Navy that it would not accept the building. "It's been a logjam ever since," said Rep. Keith Swerdfeger, R- Pueblo West. The Colorado Attorney General's Office reviewed the matter and determined that the state owns the tainted property, like it or not. "It's a state building in all practicality," Swerdfeger said. "Trying to move the federal government just isn't going to happen right now." Stubbornly, the Department of Agriculture has not listed the project among its priorities for capital funding during the 15 years since the problem arose. "It's never been on the list because there's been a strategy to get the feds to pay for it," said Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, who since last summer has championed demolition of the buildings. Pace's push has met resistance from some members of the Capital Development Committee because of the project's historic absence from agriculture's list. Instead of making a late addition to its recommended list of projects, the committee on March 6 chose to instruct the Joint Budget Committee to consider the project if state revenues exceed expectations, and to pass a resolution of the Legislature calling on Congress to solve the problem. "Now pay up," Brown said to punctuate the message Colorado lawmakers intend to send to Congress. Congressman after congressman has pestered the U.S. Department of Defense to take responsibility for the buildings without success. Pace doesn't expect a resolution from the Colorado General Assembly to change that. "I don't expect any movement from the feds," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Del Puerto Hospital Still Stir Up Neighbors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Partridge of The Patterson Irrigator reports that less than five months after the former Del Puerto Hospital building was boarded up because of vandalism, asbestos-laden materials from inside have been found littering nearby ground as the property continues to suffer blight problems. A cleanup crew began wetting down the material, which is known to cause lung ailments when its particles are inhaled, and sealed up the building on E Street near Ninth Street. The city of Patterson cited Sacramento-based property manager Red Shield Servicing regarding the mess in late February. It was the latest of a handful of nuisance-abatement citations at the former hospital property, which also was the site of an interior fire this past summer. Neighbors said it appeared the culprits of the most recent vandalism were extracting copper wire from the building, and clothing left on the premises seemed to indicate people squatted on the property until recently. One area resident, who did not want to give his name for fear of retaliation from the culprits, said the asbestos materials were lying on the ground for nearly three months. Hugo Rayo, code enforcement officer for the city of Patterson, noted that vacant buildings often are targets for vandals. "Obviously, it's a continual nuisance," Rayo said of the hospital property. In addition to calling for Red Shield to abate the property by Monday, March 12, the city reached out to the county's Department of Environmental Resources, which contacted the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. A valley air district representative inspected the site Feb. 27 to test for asbestos, and the city sent a notice Feb. 28 mandating Red Shield Services remove the debris. On Feb. 29, the district contacted Red Shield representatives, recommending that the site be secured and cleaned as soon as possible, valley air district spokeswoman Jaime Holt said. She noted that test results confirmed March 2 that the material found on the property contained 13% asbestos. Mesa Environmental Services, which received a contract from Red Shield to remove the asbestos, began cleaning up the property March 7 and completed the job within the past week. Vandalism has been an on-again, off-again problem at the property the past two years, Rayo said. The city notified Red Shield in June that debris was found on the property, and someone burned old furniture and other items inside the building in July, Rayo said. Red Shield, which works on behalf of a group of investors that owns the building, addressed some of those complaints by boarding up the place in October. Del Puerto Hospital closed in the spring of 1998 after 48 years of operation. The property sits directly between Patterson Ambulance Co.'s headquarters and Sutter Gould Medical Foundation's Patterson Care Center. A portion of the property backs up to a play yard at Las Palmas Elementary School. The building was more recently used by The Living Center, a drug rehabilitation center that shut down in 2007 after the property went into foreclosure. Several investors are listed on the property deed, signed in December 2007. A relative of one of the owners, who spoke on condition of anonymity this week, said that Red Shield's president, Ron Bieber, organized the investors from various cities to refinance a loan on the building when it was still occupied by The Living Center. They had no intention of buying the building, she said, and they ended up acquiring it when previous owners Troy and Sherry Dorman, who ran The Living Center, defaulted on the loan. At least two of the investors have since died. The relative said that, to her knowledge, the families that own the building do not know one another, and Bieber is calling the shots. "At this point, legally, I don't know what I can do," she said. "We're kind of hanging out in the wind." Bieber said by phone earlier last week that his company did not own the property. He did not later return calls after the Irrigator learned that Red Shield manages the property and was initially named as the trustee when the property was foreclosed. The parcel's caretaker, Patterson resident Bob Crone, would not comment on the matter, as he is employed by Red Shield. A cleanup crew sealed the property with caution tape and posted notices stating that asbestos was on the property. While some of that tape was removed, the warning signs remained posted. Chad Vargas is CEO of the Del Puerto Health Care District, which runs the ambulance district and a health center in western Patterson and has its central offices right next door. He expressed worry about safety hazards, noting that a representative from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District stopped by. Vargas had urged his workers to avoid parking in the lot alongside the property. Meanwhile, the Patterson Joint Unified School District will send a consultant it more routinely uses to check for asbestos at local schools to take a look at Las Palmas, just in case there are any problems, said Steve Menge, the district's assistant superintendent of administrative services. He stressed that the district takes asbestos issues seriously. Fibers found in asbestos -- the name given to a group of natural minerals used in building supplies, brake pads and other materials known for heat-resistance -- can cause serious lung ailments if the particles become airborne and are inhaled. Long-term exposure to serpentine asbestos, the most common form of asbestos, can result in lung cancer or asbestosis -- a scarring of the lining of the lungs -- according to Mike Sharp, owner of Modesto-based Hazard Management Services. Even short-term exposure to amphibole types of asbestos, commonly used in pipe wrap, can cause mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer related specifically to asbestos, Sharp said. However, mesothelioma symptoms typically take 10 to 40 years to show up, he said. Sharp, who is also an instructor at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, said it was hard to say whether people who work nearby could be harmed if they were downwind of those materials. "It may not be doing them any harm, but it's not doing them any good," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call to Quebec's NDP MPs to Expose Paradis' Role ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Caplan of The Globe and Mail relates that despite Stephen Harper and Jean Charest, it appears increasingly likely Canada will export no more Quebec-mined asbestos to countries like India and Indonesia, where it could bring misery and death to those who come in contact with it. Almost all those affected would be very poor workers and their families. But to the bitter end, the two leaders have been determined to preserve Canada's shameful record of knowingly exporting a carcinogen. In the face of denunciations of asbestos exports by virtually all health authorities, the Prime Minister made it a point during last year's election campaign to visit the riding held by Christian Paradis, home to one of Canada's two last remaining asbestos mines. Both mines are now closed, but Mr. Paradis wants them re-opened. He has long been a proponent of asbestos exports, dismissing out of hand all the proven health risks as well as all the Canadians who have died hideous, prolonged deaths from exposure to the substance. Mr. Harper has since promoted Mr. Paradis to be Industry Minister. And last June, a month after forming his majority government, he chose to celebrate St. Jean Baptiste Day in his young minister's riding -- and in the town of Thetford Mines itself, the actual home of the asbestos mine Mr. Paradis wants to see re-opened. As for the Charest government, despite the condemnation of asbestos use by every public health authority in Quebec, it has approved a $58-million loan guarantee to the mines if private investors can come up with another $25-million. The good news is the asbestos peddlers have been claiming for the past 18 months they're on the verge of getting their share finalized, but so far they have failed to do so. It appears the protests against asbestos have scared off the usual money men. If this private money isn't anted-up, the two mines will remain closed and the industry will cease operating entirely. But the fact remains the key move is in the hands of the Quebec government. If the Premier withdraws his loan guarantee, asbestos exports will be kaput. And there is substantial pressure on him to do so. It's time to make that pressure irresistible. Sadly, the Parti Quebecois has been timid at best on the issue, and most disgraceful of all, the Quebec Federation of Labour, actually continues to support the re-opening of one of the mines and the export of asbestos, even though the Canadian Labour Congress, the Confederation of National Trade Unions and many of the QFL's own affiliated unions disagree. Another fine case of solidarity forever, and tant pis for the doomed workers in Asia. Yet the Charest government is under renewed attack on asbestos from other sources. Since this entire effort has been conducted in Quebec, barely a word has penetrated the vast space leading to the Rest Of Canada. But have no doubt the ROC is very much involved here. We may function, tragically, as two separate nations on most practical and cultural matters. But Indians and Indonesians know they're dying from Canadian asbestos. It's just another way the Harper government is eroding Canada's reputation abroad. But "amazing things" on the asbestos file are going on, reports the Rideau Institute's indomitable Kathleen Ruff, who has done more than any other Canadian to terminate our asbestos exports. "La Presse has taken on the asbestos industry," she told me. "They have run a superb series of hard-hitting, investigative articles and commentaries, the best I've seen anywhere in the world. I'm sure the journalist, Charles Cote, will win an award. He surely deserves one." La Presse called on victims to come forward and family members have done so, mostly on behalf of women who had never worked with asbestos yet died from exposure to it, perhaps in a school, and were denied any support or compensation. "The day after the first La Presse article appeared, the Quebec government agreed that a list of asbestos in Quebec buildings which it has kept secret for years will now be made public." Ms. Ruff, who has been naming and shaming an unaccountably intransigent Charest government for years, adds: "It is so great to have a positive achievement for once." To help add pressure on the government, the Montreal Gazette also chimed in this week, running a tough op-ed by the head of the provincial division of the Canadian Cancer Society directly attacking the Charest government: "It is time for Quebec to stop investing in asbestos". There is a growing feeling that now is the opportunity to force the Premier to withdraw his loan guarantee, which should close the door to asbestos mining forever. Beyond both French- and English- language media, there are the voices of virtually the entire medical establishment of Quebec, of Canada and indeed of the world. At the same time, in the House of Commons, the new force of Quebec NDP MPs have been outspoken in demanding the mines remain closed. Now is the time for an even greater effort, hopefully the final push. As federal Industry Minister, Mr. Paradis continues to put strong counter-pressure on the Charest government to get the mines re-opened. That noxious role should be exposed and Mr. Paradis and the Prime Minister publicly shamed. Quebec's NDP MPs should also be raising the issue in their own ridings so that citizens can add to the pressure on the Premier. What a sweet triumph it would be for this new crop of MPs from Quebec, mocked and ridiculed by smart-aleck commentators after their unexpected victories less than a year ago, if they could help end forever Canada's long-standing export of poison to poor countries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPSM Provides Data for Constructors/Electricians ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clapper Patti Schweizer & Mason (CPSM), mesothelioma lawyers in California, have represented construction workers and electricians from all over the United States who developed or died from mesothelioma after deadly exposure to asbestos while on the job. Electricians are an often overlooked group that is at high risk of occupational exposure to asbestos. CPSM has added essential information to their website for specifically for electricians in hopes that this would help prevent unwanted exposure and protect those working in this profession. Electricians are at a higher risk of exposure because they not only have to deal with construction materials but also electrical products likely to contain asbestos. Many electricians are called in for repairs or during renovations of older homes. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, almost every physical structure built before 1980 contains asbestos materials, putting electricians who work in such environments at risk of daily exposure, often in tight and confined spaces. Electrical work almost always involves drilling and/or removing parts of a building to access and repair/replace the existing electrical system. Asbestos is commonly found in walls, floors, ceilings and roofs - the places electricians commonly have to disturb in order to get to the area they need to work. Electricians are most likely to encounter asbestos in the following products: -- Ceiling tiles -- Cement siding -- Cement wallboard -- Circuit breakers -- Electrical cloth -- Electrical panel partitions -- Gaskets -- Insulation- wall, wiring, heating units, hot water tanks, boiler, etc. -- Spackling compounds -- Switchgears -- Thermal paper Even today, with all the knowledge about the dangers of asbestos, many electricians do not adequately protect themselves from deadly exposure on the job, creating a much higher risk of mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is caused by inhaling microscopic airborne asbestos fibers, which then lodge in the lining of the internal organs of the body. Years after the time of exposure, these fibers develop into tumors and cause a fatal type of asbestos cancer called mesothelioma or irreversible scarring of the lungs known as asbestosis. The mesothelioma attorneys at Clapper Patti Schweizer & Mason have updated their website for electricians as part of their mission to provide safety information for those who work in occupations that remain at risk of asbestos exposure. Electricians in particular are urged to educate themselves and take the highest amount of precaution, both for themselves and to ensure they do not carry toxic fibers home on their body or clothing and unwittingly expose their family members. If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact CPSM today to speak directly with an asbestos attorney as well as to get access to up-to-date mesothelioma treatment information. About Clapper Patti Schweizer & Mason CPSM fights for the rights of individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos. CPSM focuses exclusively on handling mesothelioma lawsuits, representing clients nationwide for more than 30 years. With such experience, CPSM has expert knowledge of not only the asbestos industry but also how to get the maximum recovery for clients with the least interruption to their lives in the shortest amount of time. Call today 1-800-440-4262. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminants Spark Urge to Relocate Academy ------------------------------------------------------------ Hayley Ringle of The Republic at azcentral.com reports that The asbestos removal scheduled for this week at Gilbert Classical Academy, the latest in a string of maintenance issues there, has fueled the push by parents and district officials to expand the specialty school and move it. A flooring company set to replace carpeting in three classrooms during the December break found the asbestos beneath tile below the carpeting, said Gilbert Public Schools' Superintendent Dave Allison. The asbestos was immediately covered up, an air-quality test showed no contaminants and work is planned during spring break to replace the carpeting and remove asbestos, Allison said. "There is no danger as long as the asbestos is covered up," he said. "The job will be finished during spring break. "Whenever you do any renovations, you've got to assume that there is asbestos. When you do renovations, you've got to do it in a certain procedure to avoid any asbestos dust. All building managers and principals have had training in this." The school, built in the 1970s, initially was Greenfield Elementary. It became the academy six years ago. Its rigorous honors curriculum for seventh grade to seniors requires students to wear uniforms, perform 80 hours of community service and take music classes through 10th grade. Failing grades are not permitted. The school graduated its first 29 seniors last year. The academy has a waiting list of almost 300 students, and 30% of them live in Gilbert but don't attend schools in GPS, Principal Jodie Dean said. This year's enrollment is 338 students. "With the trends in education, it's imperative that GPS maintains its competitive edge by targeting the market of college-bound students looking for that rigorous educational experience," said Dean, who went to kindergarten at the school when it was Greenfield Elementary. "The demand is there." With lagging enrollment in the once- fast-growing district, what to do with the academy will be explored in the district's strategic plan. The school could be moved to another campus within the district, Allison said. Besides the recent asbestos find, the school has been plagued by water-pressure and water-temperature issues, other plumbing problems and lack of a gym. Athletic games are played in the old Gilbert High gym 5 miles away at the district office. "The problems have been fixed with the water. The only other issue is we've outgrown this current location," Dean said. "That's why it's so important that within the next year the district will look at the ability to relocate us." Next year, the school will take in 120 new students, and this year's senior class will graduate 22, she added. "The rate of attrition has dramatically decreased, and this school could use an updated campus," she said. Echoing other parents, PTO President Michele Frasier and volunteer Julie Smith agree. Frasier's daughter graduated last year, and Frasier has a freshman daughter attending this year. Her family has been involved since the school opened. "I do look forward to a better facility," Frasier said. "I think we've proven ourselves and are ready to grow." Smith has an eighth-grade son at GCA and a daughter set to attend seventh grade in the fall. She believes that the asbestos issue is the "needle that broke the camel's back." Smith added that there should have been a general parent meeting to answer questions and share results of the air- quality test. She said "there has been information," but the process hasn't been as open as parents would have liked to relieve anxieties. "It's a great school. I just wish it was in a better building," said Smith, who is running for the school board in November. "It needs to move to a new facility with double the space. The school just needs a lot of (tender, loving care). I think it is the perfect site for a gifted school." ASBESTOS UPDATE: DPH Vows Danvers Dumpers Will Face Prosecution --------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Trapani of The Danvers Herald relates that thanks to an observant custodian who noticed construction debris in the dumpster behind the Thorpe Elementary School March 5, materials containing asbestos have been safety removed from the area. Danvers Public Health Director, Peter Mirandi, confirmed that the samples from the debris did come back from the lab as "hot" -- containing asbestos. The town is now responsible to pay the approximately $2,900 to properly dispose of the material. "We've got a company on board to dispose of it the right way and then we'll be in compliance," Mirandi said. Mirandi said that since the materials were outside in the dumpster instead of in an enclosed area, there was no immediate danger to the public or to the school children. Asbestos was formerly used as insulation material in buildings and can cause issues when the material is broken open like during renovations, the fibers from the asbestos can settle into the lungs. Mirandi said that when the custodian was concerned over the material he found in the dumpster he immediately called Walter Konochuk at the Danvers Department of Public Works. The DPW in turn contacted the health department and the police. The bins were moved to the Danvers transfer station where they were kept isolated out back. In a bit of ironic timing, the state Department of Environmental Protection happened to be at the transfer station that day during a routine inspection. They offered to test the debris, which saved the town the expense of sending it to a lab on their own. The DEP will be on location in Danvers when the dumpsters are removed in case there is evidence that can be uncovered when they transfer the material from the current containers to the ones used for transport and disposal. The DEP is assisting in the investigation of the illegal dumping and Mirandi confirms that if they are able to find who did it they will face prosecution for improper removal and improper disposal of asbestos. Mirandi said that Konochuk said the debris resembled older bathroom tile, green and black colored, that could potentially be from a wall or a floor in a home that dates back to the 1950s or 1960's in the Woodvale neighborhood. Residents are encouraged to call the Danvers Department of Health with any tips or information regarding the dumping. Officials said the dumping happened two times from March 4 to March 5. Mirandi said that anytime residents see questionable items in a dumpster they should contact officials. "Asbestos is not something you can see with the naked eye," Mirandi said, "But if you see fuzzy stuff sticking out and it looks like it is construction debris then you should call and then we can have it tested in a lab." The dumpster has been replaced behind the Thorpe School and now has a chain attached to it so it can be locked to prevent any future illegal dumping. Residents with potential information about the asbestos dumping situation should call Peter Mirandi at 978-777-0001 extension 3025. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yorkshire School Carcinogen-Free by April 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reports that a South Yorkshire primary school has been closed temporarily after asbestos was found in part of the building. The asbestos was found at Whiston Junior School, Rotherham, on March 8 as work was carried out before refurbishment over the Easter holidays. The school would remain closed until after Easter while the asbestos is cleared, Rotherham Council said. Head teacher Jackie Williams said initial tests had not revealed any health risk to children or teachers. "Further tests and work will be completed to ensure that the refurbishment work can continue safely for all concerned," she said. Mrs. Williams added that the decision to close the school had "not been taken lightly", but that the safety and well-being of staff, pupils and visitors was "always our first priority". While the clean-up work is carried out, year six pupils from the school would be taught at Whiston Worrygoose School, Rotherham Council confirmed. Other year groups would have lessons at the Magna Science and Adventure Centre, with arrangements made to transport pupils. Joyce Thacker, Strategic Director of children and young people's services at Rotherham Council, said: "The council does have monitoring procedures in place for its public buildings, including schools, and it is through this work that the issue has been identified and action taken immediately." The school is expected to re-open fully after the Easter holidays on Monday, 16 April. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Azko Nobel's Move to Reveal Trust Claims Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael P. Tremoglie of Legal Newsline reports that the defense counsel in a Texas asbestos case has filed a motion to "compel settlement trust submissions." The defendants maintain that plaintiffs were eligible to file claims with several different trusts. State asbestos Multidistrict Litigation Judge Mark Davidson in Houston denied the motion. The motion was filed Jan. 31 on behalf of Azko Nobel Inc. by the law firm of Segal, McCambridge, Singer and Mahoney in Austin. According to the motion, "MDL discovery requires Plaintiffs to provide information regarding claims made or anticipated to be made with bankruptcy trusts." This ruling is the first time a defendant has asked that a plaintiff be compelled to make a trust submission. The request was based on an expert report written by a bankruptcy trust expert. This report indicated the plaintiffs are eligible to receive large amounts of money from trusts that were established by bankrupt companies to pay claims to asbestos victims. These companies were involved in the manufacture, distribution, sales and use of asbestos and asbestos products. The defendants in the cases wanted to know if there had already been claims against the trust, because the defendants will get settlement credits for any money the plaintiffs received from the trusts. The rule in Texas is that one has to provide information regarding the trusts with which the plaintiffs anticipate filing. But Davidson said he does not have the authority to compel the plaintiffs to provide the information. He said also this was an issue the state Legislature is in the process of reviewing. Davidson hears all the MDL asbestos cases in Texas. By ruling this way, Davidson may have set a precedent in Texas that no defendant will be able to compel a plaintiff to make an asbestos trust submission. The net effect is that plaintiffs will only make applications to trusts after the state tort claim has been resolved. According to critics of this ruling, this will result in plaintiffs collecting settlement funds from both the trusts and the defendants -- solvent companies that were, generally, not involved in manufacturing or distributing asbestos. If the plaintiffs have not filed trust claims in advance of the state tort case, the defendants not only have to pay the state tort damages but also miss out on settlement credits from the trusts that they are entitled to under state law. It can also be to the plaintiffs' advantage because when submissions for claims are made to the asbestos trusts plaintiffs have to show information that is pertinent to the state tort trial. This information does not always come out during discovery in the state tort case. Rochelle Rottenstein, a Long Island, N.Y., attorney who has litigated consumer injury, mass tort and class action lawsuits for 25 years, said she agrees with Judge Davidson's decision. "In my view, the state court judge was correct in using his discretion to deny defendants' motion to compel the plaintiffs' potential/actual trust claim submission information," Rottenstein said. "Although it's a close call, and some judges have allowed similar motions, the procedural rules in Texas regarding the production of settlement agreements should only pertain to actual agreements -- not anticipated settlement claims, or even claims made (and not agreed to be paid)." However she also said the defendants' motion was warranted because the defense counsel was doing its job by trying to minimize the client's potential liability through off-sets. But Rottenstein thinks that motions to compel claims information should not be granted automatically and should depend on the actual facts of the case. Another New York attorney, James Stengel -- jstengel@orrick.com -- of Orrick, Harrington and Sutcliff, said he has been actively involved in creating a level playing field so that solvent defendants get full credit for liability of bankruptcy. Stengel primarily represents clients in large, complex and multi- party class action litigation and has handled significant actions involving the chemical, tobacco and medical device industries. "Solvent defendants deserve to see the full array of exposures and potential claims against bankrupt entities," he said. "There are a variety of ways to do this. If in this instance to compel submission was the answer, that would have been appropriate." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quebec Individual Unions Oppose Opening of Mines ----------------------------------------------------------------- Northsunm32 of Allvoices reports that even though there is plenty of evidence of the health risks of asbestos, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest have been trying to have two Quebec mines reopen to export even more of the material to countries such as India and Indonesia. In those countries working with the asbestos often brings misery or even death to poor workers. The asbestos is a known cause of a type of lung cancer. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has supported the industry and in particular Christian Paradis a Conservative MP who represents a riding that contains Canada's last two remaining asbestos mines. The mines are both closed at present. Paradis wants them re-opened. Paradis dismisses the evidence of international health experts on the matter. Many Canadian miners suffered from ailments caused by contact with asbestos and many died as a result. To show his support for Paradis Harper promoted him to Industry Minister. The Liberal provincial government of Jean Charest went even further and approved a 58 million dollar loan to help open the mines if another 25 million will be put up by private investors. In spite of optimistic announcements that the money is forthcoming the negative reaction to the idea of reopening the mines may have frightened investors away. The health agencies in Quebec, the national Canadian Labour Congress, the CNTU all oppose opening the mines. The Quebec Federation of Labour supports the re-opening although many of its individual unions have opposed this. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Visiting Councilors May Be Exposed to Carcinogens ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marc Meneaud of The Bradford Telegraph and Argus reports that Bradford councilors have been warned they may have been exposed to potentially-deadly asbestos during a visit to the city's former Odeon cinema. Trespassers who have broken into the building may also be at risk according to its owners, the Homes and Community Association (HCA). Warning letters have been sent to councilors who visited the building before they made the controversial decision allowing it to be demolished. The move comes after the HCA commissioned consultants to carry out a survey of the potential risk as the building had deteriorated further. A spokesman said "very high" levels of asbestos were discovered and the HCA is now taking urgent action to remove the dangerous substance. Councilor Mike Ellis (Con, Bingley Rural), chairman of the regulatory and appeals committee, was joined by six other members and officers for the visit. They were given protective suits when they entered the building with Council officers for the visit, organized by the Odeon's previous owners Yorkshire Forward, said Councilor Ellis. He said: "I can confirm that we have been notified about the problems that have come to light and that there is the possibility that we have been exposed. "I would say that perhaps they could have been more vigilant." However, Councilor David Robinson (Lab, Wyke), who was also in the party, said he was satisfied any contamination would have been "minimal". He said: "I do not have any concerns because of the precautions which were taken. The suits, the masks and the shoes we wore were, to my mind, adequate for the visit." The agency has informed the Health and Safety Executive. A spokesman said: "As part of the due diligence process on taking ownership of the assets of Yorkshire Forward, the HCA decided to take urgent action to determine the structural integrity of the former Odeon Cinema in Bradford. In particular, we commissioned specialist consultants to carry out a survey of potential risk from asbestos in the building. "The latest survey has shown that the structure has deteriorated and that there are very high levels of asbestos in the building. These do not pose a risk unless they have been disturbed and only to people who have entered the building recently without appropriate precautions. "Now that we are aware of these issues we are contacting anyone who has been authorized to enter the building and we are making every effort to contact those people who may have entered the building without the permission of the current and previous owners. "If anyone has any concerns, they should contact their GP." A spokesman for Bradford Council said the procedure to allow councilors into the Odeon in 2009 rested with the owners, Yorkshire Forward. He said risk assessment was completed and the presence of asbestos was known but "appropriate" precautions were taken. Routes around the building were restricted to avoid areas where asbestos might have been present. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turnall Profits Hike On Non-Asbestos Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Financial Gazette (Harare) reports roofing products manufacturer, Turnall Holdings, said this week it had made a breakthrough into the Mozambican market and regained ground in South Africa after commissioning the US$5 million non-asbestos plant in Bulawayo last year. Demand for the new roofing product is blossoming in South Africa, which banned the use of asbestos roofing sheets in 2008, a top Turnall executive told Property Gazette. Turnall's marketing director, Edwin Kondo, said the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange-listed firm's new range of non-asbestos products were now the most sought-after roofing materials in Africa's biggest economy. "On the issue of substitutes, Turnall Holdings invested in a non- asbestos plant at its current premises in Bulawayo and was successfully commissioned early last year," Kondo said. "The US$5 million venture has seen Turnall returning into the lucrative South African market as well as the Mozambican market with the new tech range of products. This new range of products have made serious inroads into the South Africa construction sector to the extent that new tech products have become the preferred roofing solution in that country," he added. South Africa is just one of the countries the world over that has banned asbestos, but in actual fact, 85% of the countries in world, the United States of America included, still permit the import of chrysotile asbestos and products containing it. The emerging economies of the world, known as the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), are all chrysotile asbestos producing and consuming economies. These are countries with the fastest growing economies in the world. The ban in South Africa was a result of a legacy of misuse of asbestos unlike in Zimbabwe where chrysotile is the only variety produced and has not been banned. There is, however, no intention either to ban it locally as efforts are underway to resuscitate the asbestos mining operations in Mashava and Zvishavane. In addition, demand of chrysotile asbestos the world over is outstripping supply and is in the region of two million tons annually. China, for instance, consumes all its production and cannot afford to export. The lobby against the banning and use of chrysotile has been very successful considering that last year in October, chrysotile producing and consuming countries, including Zimbabwe, successfully blocked, for the fourth time, the parties to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent in International Trade of Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides from the listing chrysotile as a hazardous substance. The fifth Conference of Parties to discuss the listing was held in Geneva last year. High demand for asbestos products in the world's fastest growing economies, the BRIC, had also extinguished uncertainties posed by threats from Western lobbyists demanding a complete ban of asbestos worldwide. The global campaign against asbestos reached its climax in 2003 when the lobby held the first independent conference in Canada, a country that had ironically led the worldwide pro-chrysotile (white asbestos) lobby. Zimbabwe, which mined chrysotile asbestos at the closed Shabanie- Mashava Mines (SMM), was among the pro-asbestos advocates, arguing that chrysotile was harmless. Kondo said, however, that exports of the new products had remained low since commissioning of the new plant, but Turnall was working on improving capacity. "Turnall's vision to achieve a turnover of US$300 million by 2015 is still achievable taking into account the fact that the economic performance continues to remain stable and businesses are able to contribute meaningfully to the Gross Domestic Product of this country." "The increase in foreign direct investment into the construction sector will spur industry to fully utilize the available resources and machine capacity. Capacity utilization at Turnall has been improving steadily since dollarization and is now in the region of 75% upwards. This has been a result of the 100% importation of chrysotile fiber from as far afield as Russia," said Kondo. Zimbabwe's asbestos industry had enjoyed close links with the global markets and asbestos processors like Turnall had benefited from the economic advantages associated with their proximity to SMM Holdings' closed asbestos mines. However, the asbestos processors had lived under the shadow of uncertainty as the anti-asbestos movement pushed for alternative products to replace the traditional industrial fiber. Last week, Turnall reported a US$3,9 million profit for the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, compared to US$3,4 million registered in the prior comparative period in 2010. The results were driven by growth in some key economic sectors in the period under review. Turnall produces and supplies fiber cement, roofing and pipe products. It attributed the improvement in profitability to growth in a number of economic sectors in Zimbabwe during the review period. These include mining, agriculture and financial services. The firm said the improvements in turn had a positive impact on the construction sector and infrastructure development in general. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Ex-Welder's Mate to Pursue Legal Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Eastbourne Herald reports that the family of a man who died from an industrial disease is to continue its legal action. An inquest ruled that Terence Grimes, who had been a welder's mate during his working life, died from a malignant mesothelioma which had been caused by working with asbestos. Mr. Grimes died at his home in Green Walk, Lower Willingdon, last November and his family is in talks with solicitors to take legal action against his former employers. The inquest heard Mr. Grimes had been diagnosed with a malignant tumor, had undergone chemotherapy and was on morphine to control the pain. His widow Barbara Grimes said her husband, who worked for BAA at Gatwick Airport in more recent years, had wanted to die at home and managed to do so with the help of Macmillan Cancer Support nurses just after his 69th birthday. Mrs. Grimes said her late husband had been exposed to asbestos while working at ICI when he was a welder's mate working on pipework. Recording a verdict of death by industrial disease, East Sussex coroner Alan Craze said the mesothelioma had been the "overwhelming" cause of death. He also said at least 95% of mesothelioma are caused by asbestos and that of the three different types of asbestos, blue and brown asbestos are 10 times more dangerous than white asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old City Hall Redo Expected to Complete By April ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Crow of The Journal-Standard reports that the City of Freeport has begun work on repairing the old City Hall building at 230 W. Stephenson St. On March 6, contractors tore up asbestos tiles from the basement and removed partition walls, which will enable work on the stabilization of the southwestern corner of the building. "It'll be done in the foreseeable future," said Freeport Finance Director Craig Joesten. "All the work will be done in progression. This will be a continuous process for three or four weeks." The workers were able to complete the extraction of the tiles and walls on March 7. The next step in the process is to have an air quality sample done to ensure that the asbestos has been adequately removed. The results of this test were expected to be completed as soon as March 12. After the air is deemed to be clean, work will begin to stabilize the building. "This work we are undertaking is to stabilize that problem corner of the building," said Joesten. "It'll put the building into a safe mode so we can reevaluate our options over the next 18 months." Excavating will begin on the problem corner and then the building will be stabilized. The area will then be water-proofed to protect it from future problems. Finally, gravel will be used to fill in the hole where the work was done. "It's really important to get this done," said Freeport Mayor George Gaulrapp. "That's what people from 'Citizens for Saving City Hall' want to know, is where we are so we can have more information to move forward. We want to make sure things are set so we can have a plan for the future no matter what." "Citizens for Saving City Hall" is currently in the process of creating a "study group" to research and evaluate the best solutions for the future of the building. "It has had a civic presence in the community for over 100 years," said Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Division Manager Mike Jackson. "It is a unique building to our region. It's a place of noteworthiness." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Points to Carcinogenic Dust From Books ------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Parsons of The Argus (UK) reports that an Eastbourne teacher's widow believes he was killed by asbestos dust on history books. Susan Beck, whose husband Neville died from asbestos-related cancer, is suing East Sussex County Council for not protecting him from the deadly particles in his classroom. In papers filed at the High Court, Mrs. Beck and Zoe Pilkington -- the executors of the Eastbourne history teacher's estate -- are seeking compensation of more than GBP200,000 for his death. According to the claim, Mr. Beck was exposed to asbestos in a cupboard where he stored his books during more than 20 years of teaching. The writ said: "The deceased was employed as a history teacher at Ratton Secondary School between about 1972 and 1998 during the course of which he was exposed to foreseeably harmful levels of asbestos. "In the classroom, there was a large floor-to-ceiling cupboard which contained two shelves which were made of asbestos. "The deceased kept his books and equipment in the cupboard. He placed items in and took items out of the cupboard several times every day. "The cupboard was locked outside of lessons so that the cleaners did not have access to it. The cupboard and shelves were not cleaned by anyone else. "There was asbestos dust in the cupboard and, in particular, on the two shelves and which was sufficient in quantity for the deceased to have to wipe the dust and other items when they were taken out. "The deceased was not provided with any respiratory protection nor warning about the risks of asbestos inhalation. "As a result of the exposure he developed malignant mesothelioma as a result of which he suffered pain, injury, loss and damage and died prematurely on April 14, 2009, aged 71 years and one month." A spokeswoman for East Sussex County Council said she could not comment on the case as it was still ongoing. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Webber v. Ford Motor Un-Ends With Post Trial Move ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amaris Elliott-Engel of The Legal Intelligencer reports that a hotly contested Philadelphia asbestos case has resulted in a post- trial motion in which the plaintiffs' counsel claims that the verdict sheet in the case was developed because of alleged ex parte contact by the defense lawyers with the leadership of Philadelphia's civil courts. The plaintiffs' post-trial motion came in the wake of a defense motion during the trial seeking the recusal of the presiding judge as well as a mistrial. The case of Webber v. Ford Motor Co. also involved several other unique legal issues. A jury found for three defendants in a case involving the theory that Ford Motor Co. was liable for the plaintiff's asbestos- related disease because the design of the Ford vehicles necessitated the use of brake products containing asbestos. The case was one of the very first asbestos cases to be tried straight-through after Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge John W. Herron, the administrative judge of the trial division, ordered the end of reverse bifurcation in all asbestos cases unless both sides agree to it. During the trial, the three nonsettling defendants -- Ford, Honeywell International Inc. and Pneumo Abex -- moved for mistrial and the recusal of Senior Judge Esther R. Sylvester. The plaintiffs' expert on damages for medical expenses, Chad Staller, was giving direct testimony Feb. 10 and defense counsel asked to see the document Staller was referring to, according to the motion for mistrial and recusal by Honeywell. During the exchange, Sylvester said, "'You are not entitled to anything until cross-examination. Please don't stand up and ask for anything. Do you understand? Because I'm going to call -- the sheriff was in here, I'm going to call the sheriff." Two sheriff's officers appeared at 9:48 and 9:53, the motion said. The sheriffs stood by the defense table in full view of the jury and were an "overt and intentional intimidation of defense counsel," according to defense court papers. In addition to the allegation about the sheriffs, defense lawyers raised several other issues in their recusal motion. "Judge Sylvester has consistently raised her voice to defense counsel, spoken to counsel in a taunting and intimidating fashion, paced behind her bench in anger during argument, and gesticulated in a frustrated and aggressive fashion. More often than not, her conduct and demeanor in this regard cannot be discerned from the written record. . . . Such conduct is a clear violation of a judge's duty to maintain high standards of conduct, integrity, and decorum, while presiding over trial," Honeywell's counsel, Scott F. Griffith -- sgriffith@rawle.com -- of Rawle & Henderson, said in the motion. In separate motions, Pneumo Abex's counsel, Thomas P. Hanna -- thanna@kjmsh.com -- of Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber in Philadelphia, and Ford's counsel, Sharon L. Caffrey -- SLCaffrey@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris in Philadelphia, joined in Honeywell's motion for recusal and mistrial. Caffrey said in Ford's motion that Sylvester commented on the weight of the evidence. In response, plaintiffs' counsel Robert E. Paul -- info@prmpclaw.com -- of Paul Reich & Myers said in court papers that it was defense counsel who "constantly interrupted the court, refused to accept its rulings, attempted to violate court rulings and have lengthened the trial by their behavior." The defendants did not write in their motion that the court officer explained on the record that sheriff's deputies appear in the courtroom for routine surveillance of courtrooms, the plaintiffs' papers said. In another issue, plaintiffs' counsel said in the motion for post- trial relief that Sylvester committed an error of law to have the jury answer in question number one of the verdict sheet if "exposure to asbestos [is] a factual cause of George Webber's peritoneal mesothelioma" and answer in question four of the verdict sheet if "the exposure to the defective product of the following defendants [is] a factual cause of George Webber's peritoneal mesothelioma." Peritoneal mesothelioma is a rare type of cancer that arises in the lining surrounding the abdominal cavity known as the peritoneum. "The adoption of this form of verdict sheet was the direct result of the intimidation of the court by defendants," Paul wrote in a motion for post-trial relief filed Feb. 27. "Defendants communicated ex parte to Judges Herron, [Philadelphia Common Pleas Court's Allan L.] Tereshko [supervising judge of the trial division's civil section], and [Philadelphia Common Pleas Court's Sandra Mazer] Moss [coordinating judge of the mass tort program, Complex Litigation Center] falsely complaining about illusory favoritism toward plaintiffs in a letter never sent to plaintiffs counsel. Adoption of this verdict sheet was at direct ex parte instigation by defendants." Paul said in an interview March 2 that the letter was advising the judges of the defendants' motion that Sylvester should recuse herself. He said he has since seen the letter. In Paul's motion, he said that "the court made clear when it noted that the supervising judges had proposed the verdict sheet in response to the ex parte contact at a meeting convened by the supervising judges after the ex parte letter from defendants." Sylvester did not specify in court if the meeting involved Herron, Moss or Tereshko, or some combination of them, Paul said. Herron said in a short interview that a letter and a brief was sent to other judges and him, but Herron said that he does not know if it was sent ex parte. Defendants said they sent the letter to plaintiffs' counsel, but the plaintiffs said they didn't get it, Herron said. Herron said that he was not going to comment further on post-trial motions and that further response would only be appropriate from defense lawyers involved in the case. Sylvester did not respond to a request for comment left at her chambers on March 2. The plaintiff and his wife said in court papers his peritoneal mesothelioma was diagnosed in October 2010. The plaintiffs argued that Webber was exposed to asbestos from brake linings and clutches used in Ford vehicles, from Bendix brakes and brake linings and from Abex brake linings. Honeywell is the successor to Bendix. Webber was exposed to asbestos while working on Ford vehicles with a friend, Charles Hummel, and exposed as a bystander when he came in contact with his father Jim Webber's clothing after Jim Webber was working with or near Fords whose brakes, clutches and gaskets were being removed and installed, the plaintiffs said in court papers. Ford argued in its motion for a compulsory nonsuit that it could not be held strictly liable for Webber's mesothelioma because plaintiffs' counsel argued, "'I don't have any evidence that Mr. Webber actually bought a Ford brake shoe and put it in. What we do know is that Ford was responsible for the design of their vehicle.'" "A manufacturer may not be held liable for a defective product that the manufacturer neither manufactured or supplied, even though it was foreseeable that the defective product might be used in conjunction with the manufacturer's original equipment," Ford said in court papers. Even though the brakes were not made by Ford, Ford could have liability because it designed its automobiles to use brakes that contained asbestos, Paul said in an interview. Asbestos plaintiffs' counsel, when arguing that a carmaker is liable to an asbestos plaintiff because the design of vehicles required the use of brakes containing asbestos, have beaten summary judgment motions on the same theory, Paul said. This case was the first to go to trial because the other cases have settled, Paul said. In another issue, the jury found that George Webber was exposed to asbestos from the products of all seven defendants and that the products of all seven companies were defective but then found that exposure to the defective products of all seven defendants was not a factual cause of Webber's peritoneal mesothelioma. The jury was clearly confused, Paul said, because they answered the two questions on causation in conflicting ways. If they did not believe Webber's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos, "why didn't they just answer question number one 'No' and go home?" Paul asked. The trial defendants offered evidence from potential exposure to asbestos from the settled defendants, which were Georgia-Pacific, BorgWarner, Fel-Pro and Union Carbide, but the defendants failed to show Webber breathed asbestos from the settled defendants' products, the plaintiffs' post-trial motion said. Pneumo Abex argued in court papers that Webber's possible use of Abex brakes was in the mid-1990s, eight years after Abex stopped manufacturing and selling "asbestos-containing automotive friction parts." Honeywell said in court papers that "the weight of the scientific and medical literature demonstrates that exposure to chrysotile asbestos fibers -- the only type of asbestos found in Bendix brakes -- does not cause peritoneal mesothelioma." There is no credible evidence that any fiber type but amphibole asbestos is capable of causing peritoneal mesothelioma, Honeywell also argued in court papers. As well, the brake changes the plaintiff performed personally or with his friend took place between the 1980s and the 2000s when brakes were asbestos-free, Honeywell said in its motion for compulsory nonsuit. In another issue, the plaintiffs argue that Sylvester should not have allowed the alternative juror to sit with the eight-member jury. Plaintiffs' counsel said in their post-trial motion that, because the motion was made by Abex's counsel in front of the jury, "this ploy was a deliberate intent to embarrass the court and plaintiff's counsel into agreement with Abex's counsel to seat the alternate juror after ex parte contact. Having sat together as a jury, plaintiffs were afraid that objection to this suggestion would prejudice the jurors against plaintiffs as the jurors would feel that plaintiffs were being unfair and unreasonable if they objected." The alternate juror was elected as the foreman, the plaintiffs' papers said, and "two of the duly certified jurors [of nine] did not agree to the verdict when polled so only six of the duly certified jurors actually joined in the vote," the plaintiffs' papers said. The plaintiffs also said in their post-trial brief that they should not have been barred from proceeding on a negligence theory in addition to the strict liability theory. Honeywell's attorneys also included Kevin Hexstall -- kehexstall@mdwcg.com -- of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin and Bruce T. Bishop of Willcox & Savage in Norfolk, Va. Ford also was represented by Joseph F. Lagrotteria -- joseph.lagrotteria@leclairryan.com -- of Leclair Ryan in Newark, N.J. Pneumo Abex also was represented by John R. Brydon -- jbrydon@bhplaw.com -- of Brydon Hugo & Park in San Francisco. Griffith and Caffrey declined comment. A Honeywell corporate spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment. Hanna, an attorney for Pneumo Abex, could not be reached for comment. Fellow plaintiffs' counsel were Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd. The jury issued its verdict Feb. 24. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gillam Has Always Been a Hazmat Disposal Site -------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Paul of The Winnipeg Free Press reports that the mayor of a small northern Manitoba town at the centre of a public uproar over asbestos hoped the issue will be buried sometime before March 10. Literally. "I didn't expect this kind of reaction," said Gillam Mayor Jim Goymer after reports from as far away as Toronto put the Manitoba hunting and fishing centre on the map. Some residents in the remote town of 1,200, about 1,000 kilometers north of Winnipeg, are reportedly furious that tons of asbestos debris were dumped in the town's landfill before being buried. One resident voiced the fear that Gillam would be known as the Chernobyl of northern Canada. "The people just . . . the word that jumps to mind is panic," said the mayor. "There were so many bags at once that it created an uproar." He said the town hired a contractor to dig a hole to bury the 1,000-ton shipment. It's a routine disposal method approved by the province. Asbestos debris has been shipped to Gillam for disposal for years. The latest shipment, which arrived by winter road from northern Ontario, is to be buried March 6, the mayor said. The mayor believes the uproar is due to some residents being unaware of Gillam's history as an asbestos disposal site. Gillam's landfill is one of the province's registered waste- disposal sites, along with Thompson and Winnipeg. In this case, the shipment was double the size of normal debris shipments delivered annually from Manitoba Hydro sites. It was a mixture of asbestos wallboard and contaminated soil from Winisk, Ont., the site of a former distant-early-warning station. The system of Cold War-era radar stations in the Far North was mothballed in the 1990s and now is being dismantled. The shipment arrived in 1.2-metre cubes wrapped in plastic, with warning tags. Gillam is taking extra precautions with the shipment after the public outcry erupted. The road into the dump was reportedly blocked to keep people away from the bags. "It's not a problem as long as people don't disturb the packages," Goymer said. Manitoba Conservation approved the shipment. "I suspect some residents were surprised this product showed up. And at least one of the bags has a small tear in it," said Don McInnis, a Manitoba Conservation assistant deputy minister. "They're concerned and they're asking their town about it. We'll be following up with the town and making an inspection." He said the form of the asbestos from Winisk is considered unlikely to crumble or disperse into the air and is not a health hazard. Asbestos has been linked to lung disease and cancer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: KDEP Aids Cleanup After Calamity, Warns of Fibro ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Povtak of The Mesothelioma Center reports that Kentucky will provide $50,000 grants in 31 counties to help with solid waste cleanup needed after the devastating tornadoes that rocked the state last week. The grants will come with a warning: Beware of the asbestos. It's everywhere now. The storm system that swept through 10 states, spawned 42 tornadoes and killed 40 people -- including 22 in Kentucky -- left behind a massive cleanup project that will continue to endanger residents. An exposure to asbestos, which often is overlooked after a crushing storm like this, can cause serious long-term health issues that might lie dormant for decades. The inhalation of microscopic asbestos fibers, which become airborne when disturbed during cleanup, can cause mesothelioma cancer. The Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KDEP) has specific guidelines for proper disposal of debris in the wake of severe weather. In Indiana, where 13 people died and big parts of small towns Maryville and Henryville were leveled beyond recognition, the state has similar guidelines. It issued a similar warning. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials are touring both states to further assess damage and determine the extent of the federal assistance available. "Kentuckians should be aware of health, safety and compliance hazards associated with debris handling and disposal. These hazards include burning of debris, asbestos removal and mold growth," according to a KDEP news release. Included in that warning is an emphasis on the prohibition of burning any debris from homes and businesses, which would spread the asbestos for miles. It warns homeowners that the most dangerous materials containing asbestos are likely to be in insulation, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, linoleum, transite siding and roofing shingles. Homes and most any building constructed before 1980 likely were built with large quantities of asbestos. It was used extensively because it was heat resistant and helped fireproof and soundproof construction. Its flexibility also helped make buildings sturdier. Unfortunately, asbestos also was toxic, which didn't become obvious to everyone -- and cause any outrage -- until the late '70s, when its use became heavily-regulated. Asbestos materials, when disturbed through renovation or demolition or just the aging process, becomes dangerous. State officials are urging resident to use qualified professionals, ones that have proper safety equipment, to handle any asbestos materials. This is hardly a new phenomena. Asbestos exposure became a big issue a year ago following the tornadoes that ripped through Alabama, destroying 2,370 homes in Tuscaloosa County. There was both federal and state oversight of the asbestos removal in commercial buildings there, but little attention paid to the waste removal from single-family homes. The lack of oversight caused considerable concern among residents and environmental activists, particularly because of the extremely dry conditions that accompanied the cleanup period, making it easier for the asbestos fibers to become airborne. The same storm that raged through Kentucky and Indiana, damaged the roof of Murphy High School in Murphy, North Carolina. Although the damage wasn't bad enough to close the school, it did expose the asbestos insulation in the cafeteria, forcing officials to move the dining facilities into the gymnasium indefinitely. In Kentucky, the state is taking applications to help pay the cost of collecting, transporting and disposing of the waste generated by the tornadoes, reminding residents that building materials should be taken to construction and demolition landfills, warning of the asbestos dangers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Medway Council Hunts Down Illegal Fly-Tippers -------------------------------------------------------------- Kent Hill at kentnews.co.uk reports that Medway Council is warning people about the dangers of fly tipping asbestos after the hazardous material was dumped in a quiet country lane. The waste was tipped in Chapel Lane, Halling -- an unmade single- track country road. The rubbish consisted of guttering, rubble, a kitchen work-top, a mattress and roofing sheets used on garages and industrial roofs. The sheets contain a type of asbestos called Chrysotile. The rubble in the builders' bags was from BATS building supplies in Strood. Also found at the site were two contact sheets used for a printing business. The sheets advertised a firm called Awesome Events. A note was also found among the rubbish that read: "Pam, just gone to pick rest of bits up, will be back to finish it today, Thank you. Jim." On the reverse of the note was a monetary figure GBP1,200, which the council's enforcement officers believe could be the price paid for the job. Medway Council portfolio holder for community safety and customer contact Cllr Mike O'Brien said: "This is intentional dumping of a hazardous material and totally irresponsible. By tipping this waste in a public area those responsible have exposed the public to the risk of breathing in asbestos fibers. "This is especially upsetting as it follows on from the report last week in the media about the number of asbestos related deaths in Medway. "Chapel Lane is very remote and those responsible for the fly- tipping would need to have good local knowledge to use this area for tipping waste. "The council's officers will use the evidence found at the site to track down those responsible for this. "I urge anyone who knows who dumped this asbestos to inform council officers. We will be investigating this case and will seek to prosecute those who illegally fly-tipped this dangerous material." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Testify in Case Over Sailor's Death ------------------------------------------------------------ The Reading Post reports that working with asbestos on ships during the 1950s caused the death of an 82-year-old man from Theale, an inquest heard. Ronald Kennedy, of High Street, died on Friday, Dec. 16, last year, from a malignant mesothelioma. On Tuesday, March 6, Ravi Sidhu, deputy coroner for Berkshire, read a statement made by Mr. Kennedy before his death as part of a civil court case in relation to working with asbestos. In it he explained how he worked with asbestos aboard ships for 56 hours a week and slept in an engine room. Reading the statement, Mr. Sidhu said: "I can't recall where the asbestos lagging on board the ships came from, but I can recall that moving of the asbestos would be performed. "I'd then have to apply it to various pipes -- mix asbestos powder with water and apply it as a paste." The inquest also heard testimony from Dr. Christopher Davies, a consultant physician at Spire Dunedin Hospital in Bath Road, who confirmed that Mr. Kennedy had spent many years working with and living close to asbestos. Mr. Sidhu told the inquest how Mr. Kennedy was admitted to Royal Berkshire Hospital on March 30, 2010, after an x-ray showed what doctors thought was an "underlying bronchial cancer" and then to a hospital in London on April 12, 2010, after a CT scan showed there was a "considerable amount of fluid" in his chest. He was eventually diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma on May 18, 2010. Giving his verdict, Mr. Sidhu said: "The mesothelioma was regretfully going to cause his death and that was because he had had exposure to asbestos throughout the course of his working life. "He was exposed to asbestos. "It was that asbestos that caused the mesothelioma that caused his death." He recorded that Mr. Kennedy died of "the industrial disease of malignant mesothelioma." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurbrugg Hospital Toxic Debris Remain Unheeded --------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Rieger of CBS Local relates that Riverside resident Bob Grab says, "I want it cleaned up," referring to the old Zurbrugg Hospital site. He can see from his home what's left of the tattered and shredded tarps that barely cover the piles of construction debris, portions of which the EPA says contain asbestos. "I went to the township, I asked what was going to be done about it, [they told me] 'Deps going to handle it or the builder's going to handle it,'" says Grab. "Eleven months ago, we reported that state investigators found bags containing asbestos buried in the ground, in dumpsters and scattered in a boiler room that still stands during a criminal investigation. Instead of getting cleaned up by the developer, the Teicher organization, it's become a source of tension between neighbors and township officials. "How does it make me feel? Angry, frustrated," says Judy Kerchner, who lives next to the site and also says it's not secure. "I see kids who are up and down on the rubble," Kerchner adds. She also said that warning signs that used to read "Danger, asbestos. Do not enter," are missing from the fences. Township business administrator Meghan Jack says the EPA may be able to move things along faster, but they haven't received a timeline. "We have been told they are working with the owner of the property and his attorney in order to access the sight for remediation," says Jack. Nearby residents have letters from the state about the asbestos and have even had their homes tested, but Jack says Riverside never got a report that tells them what's in the piles. "It bothers me because they're our advocates, or they're supposed to be our advocates," says Kerchner. Attempts to reach owner Fred Teicher and his environmental attorney by phone were unsuccessful. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPSM Provides Data for Industrial/Plant Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to a study by the National Institute of Health (NHI), between 1940 and 1979 over 27 million workers in the United States alone were exposed to airborne asbestos fibers on the job. Of those, included were industrial workers who were exposed then and continue to be exposed to the deadly fiber that causes mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is an incurable cancer in the lining of the lungs (pleural mesothelioma), abdomen (peritoneal mesothelioma), and heart (pericardial mesothelioma.) Exposure to asbestos is the primary cause and often occurred during the course of work without victims even realizing they were being exposed to a deadly carcinogen. Industries with heavy use of asbestos and asbestos products are: -- Chemical Plants -- Construction (residential, commercial, and industrial) -- Factories -- Industrial Plants -- Mechanical Plants -- Power Plants -- Pulp and Paper -- Railroads -- Refineries -- Shipbuilding -- Textile Industry -- Manufacturing Plants According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), asbestos was known for being highly heat, fire and erosion resistant and was used in hundreds of thousands of materials, causing high risk of exposure to millions of tradespeople and others that came into contact with such products. Most people working on the job were never given warning about the dangers of asbestos, offered protective clothing or equipment, nor given any training. Occupational duties for industrial workers could frequently require work around vats, tanks, vessels, boilers, steam pipes, hot water pipes and refrigerated storage rooms that often had asbestos insulation. Much of this work would be performed in enclosed spaces and on a daily basis, increasing risk of exposure. Mesothelioma is caused by inhaling microscopic asbestos fibers, which then lodge in the lining of internal body organs and then decades later develop into a fatal cancer. Sometimes, although more rare, workers would bring home the fibers in their hair or on clothes and shoes, exposing their spouses and other family members, known as secondary exposure. Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason (CPSM) have represented hundreds of industrial workers who were diagnosed with mesothelioma. Having witnessed the suffering of asbestos victims and sorrow of their family members, CPSM offers up-to-date recommendations, advice and sources on how to avoid exposure to asbestos if you work around industrial products that contain asbestos. They also give extensive advice on the rights of workers diagnosed with mesothelioma and steps to take to get compensation for their illness. About Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason CPSM is a top national mesothelioma law firm with more than 30 years of protecting the rights of individuals who have been injured by the large asbestos corporations and manufacturers. The asbestos attorneys at CPSM have a long history of exclusively handling mesothelioma lawsuits and helping get just compensation for asbestos victims and their families. A pioneer in the field, opening the first asbestos law firm in California that specialized in this field, CPSM remains dedicated to giving the utmost in personal service to their clients while at the same time fighting hard for victims and their families. If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason today for a free case evaluation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peacock's "Toxic Chronicles" Will Highlight AIAAC ------------------------------------------------------------------ Asbestos remains one of the most lethal and widespread toxins in the world. In an effort to shine a light on this man-made danger that kills tens of thousands of people every year and is still not banned in the United States, the non-profit Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) will hold its 8th Annual International Asbestos Awareness Conference, "Asbestos: An International Public Health Crisis," March 30-April 1, 2012 in Los Angeles, CA. A highlight of the conference will be the highly provocative journalism presented by keynote speaker, Matt Peacock, award- winning journalist with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Peacock has chronicled the harrowing story of asbestos for more than 30 years: from the factories where workers frequently had asbestos 'snowball' fights and the Australian mines where Aboriginal children played in the toxic tailings to the millions of homes worldwide where asbestos continues to threaten the lives of home renovators. Peacock is an adjunct Professor of Journalism at the Sydney's University of Technology and is the author of the book Killer Company, a history of Australia's largest asbestos manufacturers, James Hardie, which is being dramatized for the TV series Devil's Dust. "We are truly honored to have Matt as this year's Asbestos Awareness Conference keynote speaker," said Linda Reinstein, President/CEO and co-founder of ADAO. "His commitment to exposing the dangers of asbestos and the criminals who profit from it reflects ADAO's mission -- a world free of asbestos and asbestos- related diseases." ADAO's international conference brings together renowned doctors, scientists, researchers, public health representatives and, most importantly, asbestos victims and their families -- in a united forum to enhance asbestos awareness, education and collaboration. "An estimated 107,000 people will die this year from asbestos- related diseases," said Reinstein. "As long as asbestos continues to be used in our country and across the globe, we cannot stop educating the public about asbestos exposure and fighting for its universal ban." ADAO's conference mission is to provide the most advanced medical, occupational and environmental information available about asbestos-related diseases to individuals throughout the world. Conference presentations will focus on preventing exposure, advances in diagnosing and treating asbestos-related diseases, providing patient resources and a global advocacy session. For a complete list of conference events or to register, visit http://bit.ly/xJVhLF About Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) was founded by asbestos victims and their families in 2004. ADAO seeks to give asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure. ADAO is an independent global organization dedicated to preventing asbestos-related diseases through education, advocacy, and community. For more information, visit http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bernie Banton's Life Chronicled in "Devil's Dust" ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mesothelioma News, sponsored by Mesothelioma law firm Baron & Budd, P.C., reports that the story of Australia's leading advocate for asbestos disease victims will make its cinematic debut later this year. The two-part miniseries, titled Devil's Dust, will chronicle the life of Bernie Banton, a longtime James Hardie employee who died from asbestos exposure in 2007. Banton devoted the last years of his life working to ensure that Australian companies compensated victims for asbestos diseases such as mesothelioma. Devil's Dust is based on the book, Killer Company, written by journalist Matt Peacock. Peacock exposed James Hardie's notorious history as an asbestos company that amassed a fortune while it killed thousands of workers and customers. In his book, Peacock puts a human face on the asbestos tragedy by profiling Banton. Banton was a long-time employee at James Hardie, where he helped manufacture building products loaded with asbestos. Banton was diagnosed with asbestosis, pleural mesothelioma and pleural disease in 1999. All of Banton's diseases are directly attributed to his working near asbestos. James Hardie had produced asbestos products for many years in Australia. Peacock found evidence that James Hardie executives were aware of the dangers associated with asbestos by the 1960s but chose not to warn employees. In the years that followed many of the workers developed similar symptoms and James Hardie couldn't hide from the secrets it harbored. Finally in 1983, James Hardie warned the public. The damage was already done. Anybody who breathes in or unwittingly ingests the microscopic asbestos fibers are at risk of developing disease, such as mesothelioma. Many companies around the world failed to provide adequate safety measures to keep workers safe. Inspections of some manufacturing plants during the 1970s showed motes of asbestos dust hanging in the air. Workers ate their lunches nearby and at the end of the day endangered their loved ones by carrying the dust home on their clothing. In Peacock's book, he told anecdotes of workers who had 'snowball' fights with clumps of asbestos and Aboriginal children who played in the asbestos refuse. Banton fought for himself and his Australian cohorts against the billion-dollar companies. His work ensured that the victims received just compensation from the responsible companies. Today the Bernie Banton Foundation ensures that Banton's legacy for advocacy for asbestos disease and mesothelioma victims continues. Actor Anthony Hayes will play Banton in the series. Don Hany and Ewen Leslie will also appear. Filming will begin mid-March 2012 with the series to air in Australia later in the year. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calgary Univ. Faculty's Death Raises Red Flags --------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that some University of Calgary employees fear they're working in a 'sick building' after a colleague recently died of a lung disease. They are concerned they might have been exposed to asbestos during renovations at Craigie Hall, a 50-year-old building on the south side of the campus. Amelia Labbe, who ran the Spanish centre in the building, died last November of pulmonary fibrosis -- a scarring of the lungs. Her husband John Labbe said doctors didn't determine what caused the disease, but he believes it was her work environment. "The 2003 renovation -- I believe all the dust and everything is what got her. But it's only a suspicion," he said. Craigie Hall is included in the university's 2006 asbestos management plan, which flags, among other things, the ceiling and floor tiles in the building. Rachel Schmidt was head of the French, Italian and Spanish department at the time. She also has questions about a renovation project to remove the asbestos. "Ceiling tiles and accumulated dust from the ceiling space had spilled into the work area and had basically resulted in air quality in which those of us who were within the entire wing could not breathe," she said. Schmidt eventually shut down the department for a few days until the debris was cleaned up, but she says the dust lingered. Labbe said his wife was worried. "Basically she came home. She was angry. She said ceiling tiles were coming down, the room was full of dust," Labbe said. The university declined interview requests from CBC News, releasing a statement instead saying that air quality tests show employees are not being exposed to asbestos in Craigie Hall. Officials say they are now doing another review of air quality. Schmidt said no one warned her during the renovations that there might be asbestos in the building, which was built when the cancer-causing substance was still widely used as insulation. "I think that we need an honest accounting from the university as to where the asbestos was at the time of these construction projects," she said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suntrust Tower Will be Tested for Carcinogens -------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Shattuck of Georgia State University's The Signal reports that the university may soon have to remove asbestos from the walls of the Suntrust Tower. The dormant asbestos contained in the walls poses little risk to students or faculty at present, although any construction work that would open the walls might expose occupants to the carcinogen if not properly removed, said Jeff Winslett, the project leader of the contracting company that formerly managed the building's construction work. He says that, during the building's remodeling from 1981 to 1991, asbestos was removed from the space between the building's floors, although the walls were left alone. He estimates the cost of abating the contaminated walls to around four times that of ordinary renovation work because of the extra layer of precaution and effort involved. As the project is still in its design phase, the university has not begun testing for asbestos, which will be done before any construction begins, according to Kim Bauer, the director of Facilities and Design and Construction Services. She says the majority of renovations will occur with the mechanical systems in the building with very few walls being removed or added. However, if asbestos is detected, the university will have it professionally removed, which Bauer says will not significantly impact the timeframe or cost of construction. "Our standard policy is to test for asbestos prior to renovations and if asbestos is found, it is professionally and safely removed and then the air is tested to confirm that it is clean prior to any occupants occupying the area." The Physics and Astronomy departments will be moving into floors six and twelve next September along with University Relations. The Communications department is scheduled to move into floors eight through eleven in December. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regulators to Restrict Alternative Demolition -------------------------------------------------------------- Annette Cary of the Tri-City Herald reports that the Department of Energy and its regulators have agreed to restrict the use of heavy equipment to demolish buildings that still have asbestos out of concern for worker health. The agreement, signed Monday, March 12, comes after the Environmental Protection Agency inspector general issued an early- warning report in December, saying that removal of asbestos in alternative ways at Hanford and elsewhere potentially threatened health and safety. Hanford contractors have conducted no demolition of buildings with asbestos in alternative ways since then, in part because none had been scheduled, said DOE spokesman Geoff Tyree. Hanford workers had been removing by hand all asbestos possible before demolishing buildings using heavy equipment, typically an excavator with shears. That included panels of transite, or cement asbestos board, siding that were bolted onto buildings. The mid-century siding is common in Hanford buildings. But when workers needed to be lifted seven stories high to remove 138-pound transite siding panels at Hanford's 384 Power House in 2008, workers instead used mechanical demolition, prying off panels as gently as possible and lowering them to the ground with an excavator equipped with a bucket and "thumb." The practice spread to central Hanford buildings, even if work did not need to be done at high elevations, until mechanical demolition of about 26 buildings with asbestos had been completed by the end of 2011. The transite siding is considered nonfriable because it doesn't easily crumble into a powder that can be breathed in. Breathing in fine fibers of asbestos can cause cancer and other lung diseases, sometimes decades after exposure, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. However, Hanford regulators EPA and the Washington State Department of Ecology now are concerned that mechanically removing siding could cause it to "become crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder." Last month, in response to worker concerns raised after the EPA inspector general's early warning, top Hanford and union officials sent a message to all Hanford employees saying tighter controls would be placed on areas that contained asbestos. That includes siding or roofing material that could break or blow off buildings that have not been demolished and areas where asbestos-containing materials may remain on the ground after buildings have been demolished. During the mechanical demolition of buildings with asbestos materials, monitoring was done and no readings indicated workers were exposed above limits set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, according to DOE. Additional sampling is being done at demolition sites. Restrictions are being placed on mechanical demolition as a precaution, said Dennis Faulk, EPA Hanford program manager. But if additional mechanical demolition is approved, there will need to be a compelling reason for it, he said. "DOE and EPA will protect the work force, protect the environment and comply with laws," he said. EPA in Washington, D.C., has issued a plan of corrections that includes communicating National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements for demolition of asbestos-containing structures. That includes notifying field offices that appropriate waivers must be issued for unapproved methods of asbestos removal and retracting approval for any work plans with unapproved methods of asbestos demolition. EPA also recommends that any worker who might have been exposed to asbestos because of alternative demolition methods be notified. DOE is developing plans to contact former workers, most likely by letter. It also has posted information at www.hanford.gov. Look for it in the rotating topics near the upper left corner. "We'll be working with EPA and providing any information they request as they work through their corrective actions," Tyree said. "Our goal is to ensure our workers continue to be safe as they do environmental cleanup." ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Takers for C$25MM Needed to Restart Mines -------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Mann of MarketWatch says there have been some suspect Canadian mining ventures over the years. But none were probably as sketchy -- or as unhealthy -- as this one. The provincial government of Quebec is doggedly trying to lure investors to reopen the Jeffrey Mine in lovely, pitted, Asbestos, Quebec. It was closed last year for financial reasons after a cave-in. Quebec's leader has been trying to find money to kick- start the mine for over a year, in fact. So far, investors have stayed away. Quelle surprise. Asbestos, you have to admit, doesn't have quite the same allure as gold or silver. That's right, asbestos. The same legally radioactive material that makes litigation-averse governments and businesses here in the U.S. close and clean buildings if even a trace of it is found. The same cancerous mineral that has attorneys trolling for lawsuits on cable-TV on behalf of victims afflicted with mesothelioma, a particularly aggressive form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure. Asbestos was banned in Europe in 2005. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 107,000 people die each year from chrysotile-related lung cancer, mesothelioma and respiratory diseases from workplace exposure. Chrysotile is the type of asbestos mined in Quebec. Asbestos, long used in construction for its heat-resistant properties, had been mined in Quebec for 130 years until its two mines shut down last year. But Quebec Premier Jean Charest wants to reopen the Jeffrey mine, despite overwhelming medical evidence of asbestos' carcinogenic effects: He gave the mine a C$58 million bank-loan guarantee if Montreal investment group Balcorp Group could raise C$25 million from investors. So far, no takers. Even though this seemingly bizarre story has attracted little notice outside Quebec, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is now under media scrutiny and criticism for appointing Christian Paradis as his Industry Minister. Paradis, who hails from Asbestos, where the Jeffrey mine is located, badly wants it reopened. During last year's Quebec provincial holiday, Harper showed up in Paradis' district, in the town of Thetford Mines, where another shuttered asbestos mine is located. But asbestos, which is mixed with concrete and used to make pipes, doesn't have a whole lot of friends in its home province these days. French-language Montreal newspaper La Presse recently carried a hard-hitting investigative series of articles interviewing victims of asbestos who didn't even work in the mines. Some women may have been exposed from being in a school building, another from washing her miner husband's clothes. Quebec's provincial government, reacting to the series, relented and released a secret list of Quebec buildings that contain the carcinogenic mineral. Quebec's medical community wants to keep the mine closed, too, not just Charest's political opposition. "It's time for Quebec to stop investing in asbestos," ran a recent Montreal newspaper headline over an opinion piece written by the executive director of the Quebec division of the Canadian Cancer Society. Even though mine officials insist the Quebec variety of asbestos, chrysotile, is safer, the Cancer Society's Suzanne Dubois insisted all forms of asbestos cause cancer. Mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung linings, can strike up to 20 years after exposure to asbestos. That explains the legal TV ads we've been seeing recently in the U.S. One opposition politician, Quebec assembly minister Amir Khadir, said at a recent news conference that "a credible source" told him financial institutions have balked at putting up the $25 million in investment capital needed to secure the $58 million government loan. Khadir told the news conference he'd consulted the V.P. of a major financial institution, "And he said the business plan did not respond to any logical market criteria." No surprise there. Jeffrey Mine execs say they have customers in India and Indonesia. Quebec Premier Charest is trying to provide political cover for the loan offer by insisting the mine won't get provincial money unless it can show its product will be handled safely by overseas clients. But videos have recently surfaced in Canada showing workers handling asbestos in those two countries without protection. The bad press has been "devastating" his industry, admitted Bernard Coulombe, president of the shuttered Jeffrey Mine. In a three-hankie statement widely reported in Canadian media, Coulombe said, "We are so criticized, so misunderstood, so tarnished." Awww. Balcorp head Baljit Chandra had said his group was close to securing the necessary funding to secure the provincial money. He said that last fall. I've tried unsuccessfully to reach Balcorp for comment through its sparse-looking website. Critics in Canada have said Harper and Paradis have been putting pressure on Charest to keep the $58 million Quebec offer on the table. But others are saying that given the recent overwhelming opposition to restarting asbestos mining now coming from Quebec's medical, environmental, and media establishments, it's a good time politically for Charest to pull the plug on the dubious loan guarantee. The reason he hasn't yet? Hundreds of potential jobs in the asbestos mines. "These jobs don't grow on trees, you know," one Charest supporter told a Canadian radio station. Maybe Charest should encourage prospective mine employees who want their jobs back to consider stuffing envelopes at home. True, it wouldn't pay nearly as much. But it won't give you cancer, either. Or, the Asbestos mine could go the way of the nearby city of Thetford Mines, where the other asbestos mine is closed -- permanently. The former head office of the asbestos company in Thetford Mines is now headquarters of Oleotek, a thriving green chemistry institute. In other words, Thetford Mines has adapted its economic model to changing times. Asbestos' Jeffrey Mine should do the same. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sandy Cape Remains Open Despite Carcinogens Find ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reports that the Shire of Dandaragan says a popular camping site near Jurien Bay is safe despite a five-year-old child discovering chunks of deadly asbestos while playing in the area. Archie Maslen discovered what he thought were dinosaur fossils but his mother was horrified when they turned out to be pieces of asbestos. Cathy Maslen and her family were staying at the campsite known as Sandy Cape 14 kilometers north of Jurien Bay. The asbestos is believed to be leftover from farmers' shacks constructed as early as the 1920s. The Shire of Dandaragan says it does warn of a minimal risk of exposure to campers but conducts checks of the site at least three times a week. CEO Tony Nottle says he will investigate the concerns but says he won't shut the campsite down. ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Navy's Sinkex Program Raises Safety Alarms -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hall of The Mesothelioma Center reports that a military exercise involving the sinking of ships may be causing inadvertent environmental exposure to asbestos and other pollutants. The program -- known as Sinkex , short for sinking exercise -- is the Navy's performance of target practice with live missiles and bombs to destroy old Naval ships. The problem is that some of these ships have been known to contain toxins, including asbestos, PCBs, lead and mercury, potentially leaking into the environment. Asbestos exposure has been linked to the development of mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the lungs, in addition to lung cancer, asbestosis, and pleural plaques. Concerns are being raised by some who fear that the government program is not considering the well-being of the environment. The Navy's sinking exercise has gone on for decades, and many within the ranks deem this use of target practice as necessary for national security. Sinkex allows the Navy to use live fire to study the "weapons lethality" in simulated environments. Records from the past 12 years show that over 109 old U.S. warships were sank using missiles, torpedoes, and large guns. Many of the exercises occurred off the coasts of Florida, California, Hawaii and other states. Florida and California are two states with the highest amount of mesothelioma cases, a disease exclusively linked to asbestos exposure. All of the ships that were destroyed were listed as old, peeling, rusty and no longer suitable for military use. Within the same 12-year period, at one of the six approved ship-breaking facilities, 64 ships were recycled. According to reports from The Associated Press, the Navy retained minimal records of the hazardous substances that were aboard ships that were disposed through the Sinkex program. Because of this, the real environmental and health dangers cannot be fully understood. In 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required that the Navy take more steps to document waste on the ships, in exchange for exemption from federal pollution laws that deemed any dumping in the ocean as illegal. AP also cites new proof that warships sunk off the coast of Florida may have caused increased levels of a toxic substance known as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCB, in nearby fish. Sinkex was paused for two years during the 1990s because critics believed that the program was out of bounds of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act's rules of PBC releases. Today, the program continues. "The Sinkex program provides numerous benefits to the Navy by making target vessels available for at-sea live-fire exercises," said Christopher Johnson, Navy spokesman. "Each vessel is put through a rigorous cleaning process that includes the removal, to the maximum extent practicable, of all materials which may degrade the marine environment." The relationship between the Navy and toxic materials date back decades, with an unfortunately close one with asbestos. This naturally-occurring mineral was used for its insulation and heat-resistant properties in countless naval products including ship piping, tiling, ceiling, flooring, engines and other components. Consequently, Navy veterans have historically represented a sizable portion of those with asbestos-related diseases. Some estimates say veterans account for as much as one-third of all mesothelioma cases. The VA now provides certain benefits to veterans with known asbestos exposure stemming from military service. Because the dangers of asbestos were not completely understood until the 1960s, widespread use of the substance was common. Battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, submarines, destroyers, frigates, marine ships, escort carriers and other naval vessels were all known to contain asbestos. Asbestos exposure has been limited in recent years because of reduced use. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Passes Asbestos Awareness Resolution ------------------------------------------------------------ Belluck & Fox LLP-sponsored About Mesothelioma.net reports that the National Asbestos Awareness Week resolution passed by the United States Senate this month contains important facts about the dangers of asbestos. Resolution 389 notes that inhaling asbestos fibers can cause serious respiratory diseases such as mesothelioma, asbestosis and other health problems. Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer of the chest cavity or abdominal cavity associate with asbestos exposure. Abestosis is a chronic scaring of the lung that causes breathing difficulty. Asbestos was used in the construction of a substantial number of houses and office buildings built prior to 1975 in the U.S. It is a leading cause of work-related cancer or occupational cancer. A significant portion of people with asbestos disease are veterans who were exposed to asbestos on naval ships and in shipyards, the resolution says. Symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take 10 years to 50 years to appear, so people exposed to asbestos in the 1960s may only recently have been diagnosed with mesothelioma. Early diagnosis of asbestos-related disease gives some patients more treatment options and improves their prognosis. But mesothelioma is difficult to diagnose and is often diagnosed when the disease is advanced. There is no cure for mesothelioma and little is known about late stage treatment of the disease. The expected survival time for people diagnosed with mesothelioma is between six months and two years. Safety and prevention of asbestos exposure has significantly reduced the incidence of asbestos in the U.S., the resolution says. The United States has cut its consumption of asbestos, but continues to import and use almost 1,100 metric tons of asbestos for certain products such as roofing materials. Even today thousands of workers face exposure to asbestos. The co-sponsors and key supporters of the resolution include Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Barbara Boxer of California, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Patty Murray of Washington, Harry Reid of Nevada, Jon Tester of Montana. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Hosts Pre-Demolition "Abatement Class" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Knight of the Bendigo Advertiser reports that Bendigo Health workers are brushing up on their asbestos knowledge. Bendigo Health's new Bendigo Hospital project team recently hosted an asbestos education session as part of the lead-up to a major demolition project. New Bendigo Hospital executive director David Walker said the information session was designed to put staff at ease and enhance their understanding of asbestos. The session provided information about typical asbestos locations, the removal process and air monitoring. "Part of the demolition works for the new hospital involve asbestos removal so we've got WorkSafe here and an asbestos removal specialist explaining to the staff what's involved in asbestos removal," he said. "Whenever you mention the word asbestos people get edgy so this is just about ensuring staff know what the processes are and detailing the precautions we will take. It's still a few weeks away until we actually start the demolition but the first thing we'll do is the asbestos removal. "So that will involve specialist firms and there will be a whole range of processes involved on how they can remove the asbestos material. "So it's fairly low risk, it's low risk asbestos most of it, and it's actually in the roofing and some other panels. "We'll also be blocking off all the air intake ducts and putting extra filters on them and a whole range of other things. "It's not something that's done lightly, it's something we take seriously." Asbestos is a natural mineral that was used to improve the strength, heat and fire properties in a range of construction materials. In Australia, asbestos was widely used in construction and other industries between 1945 and 1980. From the 1970s there was increasing concern about the dangers of asbestos and its use was phased out. In 2003, the use of asbestos was banned in Australia. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Toxic Business Thrives in Thetford Mines ------------------------------------------------------------- Guillaume Lavallee of the AFP News Agency reports that it's an unlikely match, but a green chemistry institute is thriving in the old headquarters of a Canadian mine in a sign that the former world capital of asbestos is diversifying. "We started with just two friends and two desks in an office, with no computer," recalled David Berthiaume, who runs Oleotek, a research centre that develops industrial products from vegetable oils and animals fats, rather than oil byproducts. The oleochemistry centre, which now has a team of 11 a decade after its launch, has since migrated to spacious premises next to the former asbestos mine in Thetford Mines. The city along with the nearby town of Asbestos benefited in the 1960s from the extraction of huge mineral deposits of the material banned by Europe in 2005. A carcinogenic product, asbestos was long used in construction, where it was favored for its resistance to heat and fire. But over the past 25 years the asbestos industry has collapsed, forcing Thetford Mines, a city of 25,700 some 240 kilometers east of Montreal, to adapt its economic model to the changing times. "We gave this some thought around here. We said to ourselves, 'apart from asbestos, what else could we produce here?'" explained Berthiaume, 36. His centre has since launched a first start-up, Innoltek, which produces non-toxic concrete form release oil for the construction and precast concrete markets. Once a mono-industrial city riddled with craters and slag heaps of snow-capped mining debris, Thetford Mines has since made huge strides in opening up its economy to new industries, from manufacturing and transportation to tourism, wind energy and research. "In 20 years, 1,000 more jobs were created than were lost, but the salaries are not the same," said the city's Mayor Luc Berthold. The average salary in Thetford Mines was among the highest in Canada during the 1970s, due to the extra compensation paid for working in risky mining jobs. "People who worked in the mining sector had special training, whether in tinsmithing, mechanics, welding, etc. It was a good place to foster new businesses because there was specialized labor," said Luc Remillard, president of the local economic development agency. There is no public data on the unemployment rate in the city, but the Chaudieres-Appalaches region that includes Thetford Mines has 5.7% unemployment, according to the Quebec Institute of Statistics. Remillard estimated Thetford Mines is on equal par with the regional figures. For the first time in 130 years, Canada no longer produces asbestos. The Jeffrey Mine located in Asbestos -- until recently the world's biggest asbestos mine -- is now shuttered. But it could soon receive a $58-million loan guarantee from the Quebec government to resume activities in the spring, despite protests from a local coalition asking authorities to halt further investments in the asbestos industry. After a cave-in, LAB Chrysotile closed its Lake Asbestos Mine in October, near Thetford Mines. After going into bankruptcy, it is now seeking a new investor to start its operations back up again. Despite the success of its economic diversification and the risks associated with asbestos, Thetford Mines officials are adamant about relaunching the Lake Asbestos Mine, which once employed 350 workers. "Replacing 350 jobs with small businesses takes time. The easiest way for us to keep an active economy is to safeguard our mining operations," Berthold said. "I don't have a miracle solution. We've been looking for five years for a big business to create 350-400 jobs here, but they don't come a dime a dozen." ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIF Grants Over AU$700,000 To First Recipients --------------------------------------------------------------- OHS News at safetyculture.com.au reports that Employment and Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten announced the first recipients of the Asbestos Innovation Fund. Applicants coming from New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland have been awarded grants under the Comcare Asbestos Innovation Fund. The fund which aims to promote awareness of the dangers of asbestos and examine new ways to treat people suffering from asbestos-related illnesses was launched in December 2010 by the Federal Government. Mr. Shorten is encouraged by the strong number of applicants for funding a number of projects. Jocelyn McLean from the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital at Camperdown in Sydney received AU$30,000 to be used in developing a living well program for patients following treatment to optimize recovery and improve patients' quality of life. Dr. Malcolm Feigen of Austin Health in Melbourne was given AU$185,500 over two years. The fund will be used to examine the effects of high dose hemithoracic radiotherapy for localized pleural mesothelioma, using advances in technology. Brian Sketcher from Asbestos Audits in Queensland received AU$40,000 to be used in promoting his booklet Identifying Asbestos in your Home to audiences not only in Queensland, but in other States as well. He will also develop a second resource book for electricians. Mark Brims from BSC Electronics in Perth received AU$250,000 over two years. The fund will be used in developing a portable real time asbestos fiber air based early warning system. Benjamin Hardaker from AECOM in Sydney received AU$28,500 to test a proof of concept around the design and development of a field tool used to assess soil sites for potential asbestos contamination. The Baw Baw Shire Council in Victoria was given AU$170,000 over 30 months. This will be used in developing a domestic asbestos awareness and training program for Local Government professionals, home renovators and workers in the waste and building industries. According to Mr. Shorten, an estimated 30 to 40 thousand Australians will be diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness over the next twenty years. "Many Australians unfortunately believe asbestos no longer poses a danger to the community, or places them at serious risk by handling this deadly material, especially home renovators who often don't realise the dangers involved. "The Asbestos Innovation Fund, underwritten by Comcare, the Federal health and safety regulator, is a key way of raising the awareness of the dangers of asbestos and hopefully of finding new ways of treatment for those suffering from asbestos-related diseases," said Minister Shorten. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Leads Carcinogen Handling Co In Charleston ----------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Wise of The Post and Courier relates that Donna Gonzales doesn't always wear business attire with a string of pearls when she goes to work. In fact, she prefers not to. Gonzales is in her element when she steps into a one-piece, zip-up body suit with a hood that fits tightly around her face before slipping into some steel-toed boots and strapping on a pair of safety glasses, a full-face respirator and a hard hat. "I like to get dirty," she said. Gonzales works in environmental remediation. Asbestos, lead and mold are what brings in the bread for her small North Charleston company that has taken on some very big projects. Among them are the former Cigar Factory on peninsular Charleston, the old Powerhouse on the former Navy base and Garco, the General Asbestos and Rubber Co. in North Charleston that once churned out the cancer-causing agent she labors to get rid of. Gonzales is the chief executive officer of Chembion Environmental LLC, a Remount Road firm that employs 18 people and works on projects large and small throughout South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. Gonzales said she is passionate about making the world around her a better place, one building at a time, and she takes her job personally. Both her father and mother died of lung cancer, a result of asbestos in both cases, Gonzales believes. He was 59. She was 66. "That's really why I do what I do," she said. Her father worked at shipyards long before the dangers of cancer- causing asbestos were known. Her mother was a homemaker, but she smoked and handled his dirty clothes. "He was diagnosed with asbestosis in the early 1970s, and it developed into lung cancer," Gonzales said. "You are 80 times more likely to develop lung-related diseases if you work around asbestos-related materials unprotected. The primary point of entry is respiratory." She believes her mother inhaled the asbestos on her father's work clothes and her smoking multiplied the damage. "If you are a smoker, it has a synergistic relationship," Gonzales said. Environmental cleansing of old buildings first piqued Gonzales' interest in the 1980s, when she started working for the city of North Charleston as a code inspector and later the primary code official for the city. The city began to purge itself of hundreds of vacant and dilapidated houses and other structures and she was among those who signed off on their cleansing process before the bulldozers came in. By 1995, she was so proficient in the process that she started her own consulting and remediation business under her name as a sideline to her day job. She has been doing the work so long that her remediation certification number from the state is 11 out of hundreds of people who are certified now. She stopped working for the city in 2001 and struck out on her own the next year to start Chembion Environmental, a name derived from the words "chemical" and "biological" as a continuation of her previous business. "I like to see the renovation of old buildings," she said. "I like to see them recharged and rebuilt, but you have to do it carefully and follow the rules. You have to know how to set it up where there is no cross-contamination with the outside air." All the points of entry to a contaminated building have to be cordoned off, and it must be totally contained with double layers of thick plastic. Windows, light fixtures, vents and wall sockets -- anything that could lead to air escaping from a room being cleaned -- must be covered, she said. Then she has to make sure there is enough negative pressure within the enclosed contaminated area to remove all of the toxic fibers from the air through a three-stage filtering system without releasing any carcinogenic materials outside the containment area. "It is 99.97% clean air by the time it goes back outside," she said. "A third party tests the air outside to make sure it's clean. If not, they will shut you down until it is." Workers exiting the contaminated area must undergo a five-stage decontamination process. They leave the "dirty room" to walk into an air-locked enclosure, then a shower where all the wash-off flows through filters, then another air-locked room before entering a "clean room." "It's quite a lot of work," Gonzales said. "It's not cheap, but it's necessary." In 2009, she had the task of cleansing the exterior of the iconic Powerhouse on the former Navy base. All of the coal hoppers, steam lines, fittings and gaskets had to be gleaned of asbestos before they could be removed from the structure that once provided electricity throughout the sprawling military installation and shipyard. The building, with its massive arched windows, now sits without all of the bulky attachments, inside a fence. Though heavily vandalized from spray paint, broken glass and stolen copper pipe, it awaits the next phase of remediation on its interior. "Asbestos-free" stickers mark some of the interior piping where the Navy cleaned up part of it before it left Charleston in 1996, but the building still needs a good bit of attention. "It's going to take a lot of work," Gonzales said as she walked through the maze of heavy equipment inside the structure last week. "But it's beautiful, and it's worth keeping." Gonzales's attention to detail also can be found in her work on the old Garco plant, which manufactured asbestos and rubber for nearly 75 years until asbestos was linked to cancer and the company went out of business. The Beach Co. is redeveloping the site eventually for multifamily residential, office and retail uses, but Gonzales oversaw the removal of 700 tons of asbestos-containing material and the decontamination of nearly 50 buildings before most of them were demolished. "She came in and advised us on the process, put together the protocols, got them approved by the state Department of Health and Environmental Control and then performed the work in conformance with those protocols and never received any kind of safety violation from DHEC," said Kent Johnson, vice president of development and acquisitions for The Beach Co. "We had absolutely no problems in that whole process because of her involvement and professionalism. She did a great job." Because so much asbestos and other hazardous materials are still around, Gonzales doubts their cancer-causing effects will be eradicated anytime soon. But she hopes the work she and other remediation companies complete will help people breathe a little easier that one less old structure has been decontaminated. "You have to care about what you are doing, and your people have to have the same mind-set," she said. "We are here to make a difference, do it the right way and save lives." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Upton Residents Say No To Compost Plant Operation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Retford Trader && Guardian reports that villagers in Upton and Heapham are waiting in earnest to find out whether a composting plant has been granted an operational extension. In 2007, the composting and treatment facility at Sturgate Airfield, Upton, near Gainsborough, was granted conditional planning permission for processing 74,999 tons of waste. The site, owned by Land Network Gainsborough Ltd, was given 15 conditions to follow but breached two. They have re-applied and expected the decision to come before Lincolnshire County Council's planning committee Monday, March 12. But concerns have been raised by people who live nearby, who say the plant is in the wrong place. They say they have been plagued by odor, noise, dust and flies since the plant opened. And more worryingly, roofing sheets containing asbestos have been found on the site. "We are worried that this asbestos could have been shredded during the composting process and harmful dust flung into the air around us," said one resident who wished to remain anonymous. The Environment Agency said it had inspected the site and found no evidence to suggest the asbestos had been shredded. "The material has now been moved to an appropriately permitted facility," said a spokesman. Residents also object to the sheer scale of composting operations that could develop if the plant is given permission to process 74,999 tons a year. "There are discrepancies in the council's own reports about whether the limit is 74,999 of waste coming into the site or 74,999 tons of compost as an end product," said the resident. "The latter could result in a limitless amount of green waste being brought into the site, and increase operations dramatically." "In our view this is the wrong place for such a plant, and this is the perfect opportunity for the county council to do the sensible thing, turn it down and move it somewhere else." Philip Bates, director of Land Network Gainsborough, told the Gainsborough Standard he has no plans to increase his operation. "The application says that we can have 'up to 74,999 tons' but that doesn't mean we're going to," he told the Standard in November. "We're just seeking to confirm the planning application that was made four years ago that we made an error on." Council officers recommended councilors to approve the application on March 12. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cardiff Surveyor Misses Target, Fined GBP8,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- PP Construction Safety reports that PHH Environmental (UK) Ltd. has been fined for putting the health of demolition workers at risk after a building survey failed to identify the presence of asbestos. An asbestos survey was commissioned between Jan. 15 and 25, 2010, on an about to be demolished cinema in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales. The client relied on the survey which was provided to a demolition contractor. However, when demolition was underway workers discovered asbestos and found they had disturbed it. PHH Environmental (UK) Limited, of Cardiff, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined GBP5,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP3,000. HSE inspector Steve Richardson investigated the case. He said: "Anyone carrying out refurbishment or demolition work relies upon accurate asbestos surveys to reduce the risk of them being exposed to deadly asbestos fibers. It is essential that those surveys are comprehensive, intrusive and undertaken by competent persons -- if not lives are needlessly put at risk." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition in Warrnambool Stirs Unaware Neighbors ------------------------------------------------------------------ Clare Quirk of The Warrnambool Standard reports that residents living near a controversial demolition in Mickle Crescent have raised fears for their health after dust particles from the site entered their home. Warrnambool City Council has tested the site for asbestos and told Rodger and Margaret Brough, who live near the Mickle Crescent house, the tests had come back negative. Dust samples were taken from the exterior of two neighboring homes and from the interior of another and no asbestos was detected in the samples, the council reported. The house, built by the late clothing industry icon Sir Fletcher Jones, was demolished two weeks ago, despite opponents attempting to have the house included in council's heritage overlay. Mr. Brough, whose elderly father-in-law also lives in the house, said dust from the demolition had blown in. "Yes, there is dust in the house and there is quite significant amounts in rooms adjacent to the demolition," he said. "Certainly all the evidence we've looked at is that because the property wasn't included in the heritage overlay they didn't have a lot of obligations. "There is no obligation to notify residents, although it's recommended by WorkSafe." Mrs. Brough said since the demolition their lives had been put on hold while they waited for the test results. "It just highlights the protocol that when asbestos is being removed from a house neighbors should be kept informed," she said. "We have had our hands tied as we waited for these results." The council's health and local laws manager Murray Murfett said neighbors near the site had raised some concerns regarding the dust. "Council is monitoring the site and . . . will continue working with Worksafe and other agencies to ensure safety on the work site," he said. The tests come after residents said they were caught unaware by the demolition. Mr. Brough said he and other residents had been working to get the house included in the heritage overlay when he was told by a neighbor the roof was coming off on Saturday, Feb. 25. The house was demolished within two days. A planning permit was not needed for the demolition because the heritage overlay did not apply to the property. The house was the subject of controversy recently when workers at a Warrnambool demolition business used an oxy torch to remove asbestos sheeting during a total fire ban. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Delay Anglesea Skate Park Upgrades --------------------------------------------------------------- Ali Deane of the Surf Coast Times reports that following 12 months of hard work getting Anglesea Skate Park upgrades off the ground, a recent discovery of asbestos on site could set plans back as investigations and clean-up ensue. A number of small pieces of asbestos were found and according to Surf Coast Mayor Brian McKiterick, Council took immediate action and closed the park as soon as the presence of the dangerous substance was verified by Environmental Health officers. "The site has been closed as a precautionary measure and will remain closed until further notice," Cr McKiterick said. "Fencing and signage were installed over the weekend and further tests commissioned." Chairperson of the Anglesea Skate Park committee Paul Weight said earth moving works and heavy rain in the region could have contributed to the finding. "The potential is there in the area, with a lot of older 1960s buildings," he said. "We've raised $22,000 in the community, plus $45,000 from Surf Coast Shire to fix up the old skate park, and add new facilities including a large freestyle area, and multi-purpose event stage. "We've done $10,000 worth of works, and it's very exciting -- we were literally about to start stage two." Mr. Weight said many local youths were disappointed when they learnt about the delay. "It's up to the authorities now," he said. "We just want the public area to be safe so young people can enjoy their recreation, and we believe this will be done with due diligence. We just hope it's not a drawn out process." Cr McKiterick said the health of the local community was the number one priority, which is why they had acted so quickly. "Council has engaged a fully-qualified occupational hygienist to undertake further tests to determine the origin of the asbestos, assess the extent of any contamination on the site and the level of potential public health risk." The results of these tests will determine any further site treatment and other actions that may be required. The findings in Anglesea come amid recent confirmation of asbestos in the Jan Juc Creek Reserve as a result of underground storm water works as part of the RACV Torquay Resort project. Comprehensive results of secondary top soil tests along the trench lines were unavailable as the Surf Coast Times went to press. However, according to project manager Bruce Van Every, a detailed remediation plan will be implemented and the RACV will engage a specialist removal company to ensure there is no risk during the clean-up. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coulombe Says WHO Statistics a "Fantasy" --------------------------------------------------------- The Mesothelioma News Center reports representatives from the Canadian asbestos industry are appealing to the federal government in Ottawa to help them challenge death toll estimates released by the World Health Organization (WHO) which state that more than 100,000 people each year die of asbestos-related diseases. According to a Canadian Press article, Bernard Coulombe, president of the now-silent Jeffrey Asbestos Mines, claims that the statistics touted by WHO are "an exaggeration based on unfounded evidence." "Where are those deaths? And name at least 10 of those deaths," Coulombe said in an interview from the Quebec town of Asbestos. "It's absolutely a fantasy." He says that WHO, the health agency of the United Nations, has repeatedly failed to respond to his request to provide scientific evidence to back up those statistics. He has asked the Canadian government to step in and demand answers to his questions; particularly, how WHO personnel arrived at that 100,000 figure. "This bad publicity hurts us enormously as a corporation," said Coulombe, whose mine closed last year, citing financial problems. The other asbestos mine in Quebec is now closed as well and proponents of a ban on asbestos production and export are hoping to keep them closed for good. Coulombe, however, is trying to secure a $58 million bank loan from the Canadian government so that he can re-open what was once Canada's largest and most profitable asbestos mine. The World Health Organization, in the meantime, says it stands behind its figures, noting that they relate specifically to individuals who suffer asbestos exposure at work. The statistics, say Ivan Ivanov, a team leader with the organization's public health and environment department, are gathered from published research done by reputable scientists. He did note, however, that the figures are a scientific estimate, not a list of names submitted by doctors around the world. While Canada maintains that its form of asbestos -- chrysotile -- is not as dangerous as other forms if handled correctly, it is the goal of WHO to see all countries stop the use of all kinds of asbestos, stressing that even low levels of exposure can cause diseases such as asbestosis and pleural mesothelioma. "In the industry, they use any kind of arguments, basically, to refute data that they don't like," Ivanov said. "Whatever numbers WHO publishes -- some people like them, some people don't." He adds that they will reply to Ottawa if the government makes an official request in regards to the statistics. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carcinogens Prompt Macedon for All School Check ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Valente of the Macedon Ranges Weekly reports that asbestos particles found in a Woodend kindergarten have prompted Macedon Ranges Council to audit all its kindergartens. A 2006 report had failed to detect asbestos at the Woodend kindergarten. The report has been used by the council as a guide for works since 2006. The asbestos was detected on Feb. 23 in a power box. Council assets and environment director Dale Thornton said the asbestos was considered safe until it was unintentionally disturbed by a workman out of hours. "It was removed from the power box, tests were conducted and as a further precaution council also arranged for the entire power box to be replaced," he said. "It was hidden behind another board but should have been detected. The 2006 report was thorough but this one omission has led to the need for another review." The Woodend kindergarten was closed on Feb. 23 and reopened on Feb. 27. All council-managed kindergartens, which include one each in Macedon, Kyneton and Lancefield and two in Gisborne, as well as its kindergarten buildings in Romsey and Riddells Creek will be audited. "The audits are not invasive and do not create a hazard. They will be conducted out of hours, wherever possible," Mr. Thornton said. "Asbestos is found in most buildings and homes that are over 25 years old. Council will action anything that is recommended for action. Asbestos that is safe will be tagged and checked regularly." In October 2010, Grant Avenue Kindergarten in Gisborne was closed for three weeks after "unsafe" asbestos sheeting in the 40-year- old building was found. The council is seeking quotes from accredited companies for the audit, which is expected to begin this month. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Says Loan Should Be Used on Non-Toxics ------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Dubois, executive director of the Quebec division of the Canadian Cancer Society, writing for The Montreal Gazette, relates that there has been much discussion in the media lately regarding the status of asbestos in Quebec. The province is at a historic juncture: for the first time in 130 years, it no longer produces this mineral resource. This break in production is an opportunity to put an end to the use of a recognized carcinogen. There is no safe application of asbestos, which has already claimed too many lives, here and elsewhere. All forms of asbestos cause cancer, including lung cancer, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, laryngeal cancer and ovarian cancer. Yet the government of Quebec is set to assist in the reopening of the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos with loan guarantees of $58 million, quashing public discussion of this critical issue in the process. The Canadian Cancer Society is firmly opposed to all investment of public funds in asbestos mining. The society believes that greater effort must be made to manage asbestos wherever it is present (producing a registry of buildings that contain it, and removing it when possible). It also believes that workers in Quebec's asbestos industry must be supported through direct investment designed to transform their regional economy. Voices in favor of an asbestos ban continue to be heard. Reports by recognized researchers and medical associations in May 2011 (on modifications to the Mines Act), a letter signed by 16 public- health directors in January 2011, campaigns by Coalition pour que le Quebec ait meilleure mine, repeated calls by victims, and statements by five MNAs on Feb. 23 all deliver the same message: stop supporting the asbestos industry. But our governments are playing deaf: they privilege short-term economic considerations and fail to consider the resulting costs and the impact on people's health and lives. Even worse, Canada is delaying progress at the international level by refusing to allow the addition of chrysotile asbestos to the list of hazardous substances recognized by the Rotterdam Convention, a United Nations treaty that has been in effect since 2004. How can you act with caution when you refuse to face reality and admit a particular product's toxicity? The reality of asbestos-related diseases is a cruel one, yet such diseases are preventable. On Feb. 9, Radio-Canada's Enquete reported the poignant story of a woman and her daughter who contracted mesothelioma, a particularly aggressive form of cancer, from washing work overalls belonging to her husband, who worked in the asbestos industry. La Presse recently reported the case of a woman who succumbed to mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos at her workplace, a cafeteria at a high school. This illustrates the urgent need for a registry of buildings that contain asbestos, and public access to this information. At the same time, two communities (Asbestos and Thetford Mines) are hoping for a recovery in this industry in order to sustain their economic development. In a spirit of solidarity, the Quebec government should invest the $58 million earmarked for the asbestos industry in projects designed to promote diversification, creativity and local initiatives. This is not the antithesis of economic development; instead, it is a matter of contributing to the economy by supporting public health. Every year, more than 100,000 people worldwide die of asbestos- related diseases. As a consequence of past negligence, 70% of deaths for which a claim is filed with the Commission de la sante et de la securite du travail are asbestos-related. Ignoring what is happening with regard to asbestos in public and private buildings, and what will happen as a result of the asbestos we produce, is an untenable position. The Canadian Cancer Society is calling on the government to take cogent and courageous action on this issue and to stop supporting an industry whose product is a recognized carcinogen. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Thanks Sponsors of "Asbestos Awareness Week" ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), which combines education, advocacy and community as the leading U.S. organization serving as the voice of asbestos victims, applauds Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and cosponsors for again introducing a resolution declaring the first week of April as "National Asbestos Awareness Week" that seeks to "raise public awareness about the prevalence of asbestos-related diseases and the dangers of asbestos exposure." Additional cosponsors and key supporters include: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), and Senator Jon Tester (D-MT). "Asbestos Awareness Week is a rallying cry to keep the tragedy of Libby from happening again. It's also an opportunity to remind people that much more work lies ahead to help victims of asbestos- related diseases," said Baucus, who was instrumental in urging the EPA to declare its first ever public health emergency in Libby, Montana. "Although we can never fully right the outrageous wrong that took place in Libby, we can fight to make sure the community has the tools it needs to heal. And, we can keep working hard to make sure the public is aware of the tragic impact of asbestos exposure." "ADAO applauds the U.S. Senate for its introduction of the Eighth Annual Resolution recognizing National Asbestos Awareness Week," said Linda Reinstein, President and Co-Founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. "Since 2005, we have seen strong momentum towards raising awareness to prevent environmental and occupational asbestos exposure to eliminate asbestos-caused diseases. We look forward to the passage of this important Senate Resolution designating April 1 -- 7 to be a week of awareness and moving closer to a future without asbestos." Asbestos is a known human carcinogen and exposure can cause mesothelioma, lung, gastrointestinal, laryngeal and ovarian cancers, as well as non-malignant lung and pleural disorders. Studies estimate that 107,000 workers around the world will die every year of an asbestos related disease -- equaling 300 deaths per day. ADAO will hold its Eighth Annual International Asbestos Conference on March 30 -- April 1, 2012, in Los Angeles, California. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letter Pleas for Dr. Leitch to Choose Ethics ------------------------------------------------------------- A letter addressed to an editor at madhunt.com from John Gruetzner, President of Simcoe-Grey Federal Liberal Riding Association, relates: The prestigious scientific journal Nature wrote an editorial this month that ends with the line "The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free." The article is written in support of the Canadian Science Writers Association Letter sent Feb. 16 to the Conservative government to protest the Harper government's heavy hand in the suppression of tax payer funded research and facts generated by scientists working in Canada. Members of the Canadian Medical Association last year asked Simcoe-Grey MP, Dr. Kellie Leitch, to choose ethics over exports and called upon her to advocate the Harper government to change its position and accurately label asbestos or prohibit its export. An article published last year noted: "More than 300 Canadian and American medical experts signed a letter sent to MP Dr. Kellie Leitch calling on her to oppose any export of asbestos from Canada." Dr. Leitch's unique response at the time was that her expertise was in orthopedics. As a member of Parliament, she is no doubt aware that millions are currently being spent to remove asbestos from Parliament Hill because of the danger to your personal health. Her government's failure to properly label asbestos as a hazardous material outside of Canada is a gross denial of the facts. The Simcoe-Grey area has recently been poorly ranked in Ontario with respect to the percentage of students that go on to post- secondary education. Our students need inspiration about the importance of knowledge. I am confident that many local area high school principals would be reluctant to permit the Conservative government's attitude towards science to guide their science teachers in the classrooms. The future of the Canadian economy is tied to success in the research, development and application of science. History grants status on Socrates and Galileo for standing up in the pursuit of the truth and the facts. It is now time for Dr. Leitch and the Conservative government to stop suppression of scientists. I hope that the Conservative party can change its policies and foster, not destroy scientific freedom. Does the Conservative Party of Canada really need to take so much inspiration from the Bush-Cheney administration that it needs to ridicule facts and logic that are the basis of good science? Please let the voters of Simcoe-Grey know via this newspaper whether or not you support the value of independent scientific research to our economy and society in Canada. Please let us know whether or not you personally condone the actions of the Prime Minister and your party to suppress scientists in Canada. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sam Hider Reopens After Test Came Up Negative -------------------------------------------------------------- The Cherokee Phoenix reports that the Sam Hider Clinic, which was closed March 2 and 5, to investigate the possible threat of asbestos in the air is set to re-open Tuesday, March 6 after testing came up negative for airborne contaminants. "During the expansion efforts in the clinic's contract health area, an employee noticed something that he thought might be asbestos and alerted the environmental programs office," Cherokee Nation Health Services Executive Director Connie Davis said. "We wanted to err on the side of caution and closed the building while an independent contractor came in and tested the area." Some of the tile and adhesive debris in the renovation area tested positive for trace amounts of asbestos, but Davis said the tests for airborne asbestos came back negative Saturday and that re- opening the clinic does not pose a health or safety risk. "Now that we know it is there, we will be taking additional precautions," interim Medical Director Dr. Doug Nolan said. "A barrier is now up around the construction area. Any tiles that tested positive for asbestos will be properly disposed of to avoid the risk of making the asbestos airborne and a threat to the employees and patients at the Sam Hider Clinic. The adhesive that tested positive will be resealed under new floor tile to prevent it from becoming airborne." ********* 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. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2012. 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 Peter Chapman at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *