/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/121207.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 7, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 243 Headlines CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss "Livingston" Suit Pending CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in "Marchese" Suit Still Ongoing CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Opposition Brief in Consumer Suit Due Jan. 4 CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Sup. Ct. Denies Petition in "Brantley" Suit CANTINA FOODS: Recalls 2,375 Lbs. of RTE Beef and Cheese Pies CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Workers File Overtime Class Action COTY: Sued in California Over False Claims on Mascara DISH NETWORK: Antitrust Class Suit Against Unit Now Concluded FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Stay Bid Ruling in Suit Over Transfer Taxes FEDERAL HOME: Class Cert. Denied in Suit vs. Underwriters FEDERAL HOME: Mich. AG & Treasury Claims in "Hertel" Suit Tossed FEDERAL HOME: Discovery in "OPERS" Securities Suit Still Ongoing FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Administratively Closed in June FEDERAL HOME: "Kuriakose" Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Dismissal FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Defends Class Suits Over Handling of Claims FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Junk Faxes GENTIVA HEALTH: Final Hearing on "Wilkie" Suit Deal on March 25 GEOEYE INC: Signed MOU in Oct. to Settle Merger-Related Suits GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Court Allows Paxil Class Action to Proceed GREENBERG TRAURIG: Female Attorneys File Gender Bias Suit HOME DEPOT: Recalls 3,700 Homer's All-Purpose Bucket Mugs HUGOTON ROYALTY: Class Suit Appeals To Be Fully Briefed in 2013 HUGOTON ROYALTY: "Fankhouser" Suit Arbitration Hearing on May 13 HUGOTON ROYALTY: Motions to Dismiss "Lamb" Suit Remain Pending JEFFERIES GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Acquisition by Leucadia JOTUL NORTH: Recalls 1,250 Jotul and Scan Gas Fireplace Inserts KIRBY CORP: To File Response to Rescue Mission's Class Suit L&L ENERGY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Mills" Class Action LOGITECH INT'L: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice NEW YORK CITY: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras NEW YORK LIFE: Sued by Insurance Agents Over Labor Law Violations NUFARM: Uncertainty Remains Following Shareholder Class Action ONE WORLD: Judge Narrows Coconut Water Class Action POPULAR COMMUNITY: Sued Over Imposition of Overdraft Charges PREMIER FOODS: Framework Set for Bread Price-Fixing Class Actions RETAIL PROPERTIES: Defends Class Suits Brought by Stockholders RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Refuses to Rehear Suit Dismissal SINO-FOREST CORP: E&Y Faces OSC Allegations Following Settlement STOP & SHOP: Recalls Veggie Patch Ultimate Meatless Burgers UNITED STATES: Vietnam Veterans Join Class Action in Connecticut URS Corporation: Expects 2013 Ruling in Hurricane Katrina Suits VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits OK of Indirect Purchasers Deal WET SEAL: Guilty of Employee Discrimination, EEOC Probes Show Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Faced 1,081 Cases at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Accrues $473MM in Q3 PI Charges ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 96,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Had 15 Pending Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faced 4,443 Claims at Oct. 17 ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Currently Defends 29 Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faced 2,155 Cases at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Plans to Update Study in 3rd Quarter 2013 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Still Defending Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 56,773 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Continues to Defend Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Still Defends London Insurers Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Defends Boudreaux & New Antoine Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Faced 315 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors' Row Stops Rawlins Demolition Project ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Issues Delay Bidding for Forks Cleanup Work ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Material Dumped in Blackpool Back Alley ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison Public Library Closes For Abatement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Clients Awarded $17 Million Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Kills Ilkeston Mechanic ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Announces 2013 Conference Speakers, Honorees ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Woes Balloon Pueblo City Hall Project Costs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Client Awarded $9 Million Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Councils to Get Guidelines for DIY Buffs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jeffrey Mine Is Now Stand-In for Planet Mars ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocacy Group Slams MAV's Rejection of AAMR Plan ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Researchers Receive AU$291,815 Fund ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Celebrates Asbestos Awareness Week ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition of Decrepit Building in Miss. Starts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts Project at St. Mary's Park in Penrith ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Forms Model Asbestos Policy for Councils ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forster Mill Demolition Plan to Launch Anytime ASBESTOS UPDATE: WA Labor Senator Launches Attack on CSR Solicitor ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welsh Minister Doubts Local Anti-Fibro Efforts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal of Tenterfield Toxic Mulch to Complete ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duluth Will Seek Funds for Armory Remediation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitch Eyes Fibro Reserve Deficit for US Insurers ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Starts Online Permit and Notification Service ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Ketchikan Hospital Demolition Begins January ASBESTOS UPDATE: Black & Decker (US), 27 Others Face Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oswego DSS Office Moves to Fulton for Abatement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burnt Fibro in Razed Distillery Investigated ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM Proposes Bill Aimed for NHS to Recover Costs ASBESTOS UPDATE: St Peter's Seminary in Cardross Contaminated ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ausgrid Slams Claims, Says Substations Are Clean ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Urged to Enlist Fibro Under Rotterdam Rule ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Faces Commonwealth, MassDEP Charges ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Milford Resolves Abatement Issue on Lot Sale ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Integrates Fibro With Emergency Services ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loyd E. Mitchell Can Implement Insurers' Accord ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wallace & Gale Trust Blocks PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Date of Disablement Ruling v. Astro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Says Children Are Claimant's Heirs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Ordered to Insure Alfa Laval ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants More Time to Perfect Appeal ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Affirms Judgment Favoring Kemper, et al. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Orders New Trial on Suit v. AstenJohnson ********* CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss "Livingston" Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation's motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit styled Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al., remains pending, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Cablevision and certain current and former officers, by a Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011. The complaint alleges that Cablevision and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertising costs, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especially in the New York area. The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. On March 26, 2012, the Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund submitted a joint application to serve as lead plaintiffs. The Court granted the application on April 13, 2012. On June 29, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 11, 2012, the Court issued a ruling permitting the filing of a motion to dismiss and setting a briefing schedule. In accordance with that schedule, on October 18, 2012, defendants served on plaintiffs a motion to dismiss. The Court's schedule provides for the motion to be fully briefed by February 1, 2013. The Company believes that these claims are without merit, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in "Marchese" Suit Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. The lawsuit is captioned Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. Discovery is proceeding. No further updates were reported in the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Opposition Brief in Consumer Suit Due Jan. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation's brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the matter titled In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation is due on January 4, 2013, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining claims which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The Company's brief in opposition to the motion is due on January 4, 2013. On October 19, 2012, plaintiffs obtained leave of the Court to file a motion for partial summary judgment on November 19, 2012. Discovery is also proceeding. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Sup. Ct. Denies Petition in "Brantley" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court denied in November 2012 Brantley, et al.'s petition seeking leave to appeal the affirmation of the dismissal of their class action lawsuit, according to Cablevision Systems Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On September 20, 2007, individual cable and satellite subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, filed an antitrust lawsuit, captioned Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Cablevision and several other defendants, including other cable and satellite providers and programming content providers. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by agreeing to the sale and licensing of programming on a "bundled" basis and by offering programming in packaged tiers rather than on an "a la carte" basis. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief. On June 12, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice for failure to plead foreclosure of any non-defendant programmers, which the Court held to be a necessary element of the alleged antitrust injury. On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 30, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case. On April 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed petitions for rehearing which the Ninth Circuit denied on May 4, 2012. On August 2, 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition seeking leave to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 5, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition. Plaintiffs' deadline to seek rehearing of the order was on November 30, 2012. CANTINA FOODS: Recalls 2,375 Lbs. of RTE Beef and Cheese Pies ------------------------------------------------------------- Cantina Foods, a Buffalo, New York establishment, is recalling approximately 2,375 pounds of ready-to-eat beef and cheese pie products because they were produced without the benefit of federal inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The following products are subject to recall: * Cartons containing four clear plastic bags with six 4-oz. "Beef and Cheese Pastellios" in each bag. There are no labels or marks of inspection on the bags or cartons. The products were produced and sold from October 3, 2012, through November 20, 2012, and distributed to retail establishments in the Buffalo, N.Y. region. The individual pies may have been available for sale from heat trays at convenience stores. The Company had requested to voluntarily suspend its operations in September 2012 after a food safety assessment by FSIS identified problems with the firm's Listeria monocytogenes control program. Through their investigation, FSIS enforcement personnel identified the products in commerce and determined that the Company had produced them without the benefit of inspection. FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a health care provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp Consumers and members of the media who have questions regarding the recall can contact the Company's owner, Toumet Koury, at (716) 602-3536. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1- 888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received Beef and Cheese Pastellios that have been recalled by Cantina Foods. The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all retail locations that have received the recalled product or may include retail locations that did not actually receive the recalled product. Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that consumers use the product-specific identification information available at http://is.gd/Rkap5w,in addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers' possession to see if they have been recalled. Retailer Name City and State ------------- -------------- Citgo Food Mart 389 Fillmore Ave., Buffalo, New York Sunoco Gas Station 221 Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York Gulf Gas Station 1079 Military Road, Buffalo, New York CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Workers File Overtime Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Children's Hospital Los Angeles stiffs hourly workers for overtime and breaks other labor laws, a worker claims in a Los Angeles Superior Court class action. COTY: Sued in California Over False Claims on Mascara ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Coty pushes a mascara with false claims that it will "grow and multiply eyelashes" in 30 days, a class action claims in San Diego Federal Court. DISH NETWORK: Antitrust Class Suit Against Unit Now Concluded ------------------------------------------------------------- The antitrust class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation is now concluded, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers filed an antitrust action against the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, DISH Network L.L.C., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis. On October 16, 2009, the District Court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. On June 3, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order. The plaintiff class sought rehearing en banc. On October 31, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating the previous June 3, 2011 order, directing that a 3-judge panel be reconstituted, and denying the plaintiff class' motion for rehearing. On March 30, 2012, the reconstituted panel of the Ninth Circuit again affirmed the District Court's order. On April 10, 2012, the plaintiff class again filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied on May 4, 2012. On August 2, 2012, the plaintiff class filed a petition seeking review by the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on November 5, 2012. The matter is now concluded. FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Stay Bid Ruling in Suit Over Transfer Taxes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to stay the proceedings in the class action lawsuits in Michigan related to unpaid real estate transfer taxes, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On June 20, 2011, Oakland County (Michigan) and the Oakland County Treasurer filed a lawsuit against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that the enterprises failed to pay real estate transfer taxes on transfers of real property in Oakland County where the enterprises were the grantors. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as Conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. On November 10, 2011, Genesee County (Michigan) and the Genesee County Treasurer filed a class action lawsuit in the same court on behalf of itself and the other 82 Michigan counties raising similar claims against FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae. The Court later certified the class, with two Michigan counties opting out. The Michigan Department of Attorney General and the Michigan Department of Treasury intervened in both actions against the defendants. In both actions, FHFA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae asserted that they were not liable for the transfer taxes based on federal statutory tax exemptions applicable to each. On March 23, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment against FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae in both actions, determining that the statutory exemptions did not exempt them from Michigan's state and county transfer tax. The plaintiffs in both cases subsequently filed amended complaints to cover purportedly taxable transactions where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae received property as grantees through a Michigan Sheriff's deed or a deed in lieu of foreclosure. FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and have requested that the District Court stay the actions pending resolution of the appeal. The District Court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motion for a stay, nor has it addressed the amount of damages the plaintiffs contend are owed in either case. At present, the Company says it is not possible for it to predict the probable outcome of these lawsuits or any potential effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operation. In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss with respect to these lawsuits due to the following factors, among others: (a) none of the plaintiffs have demanded a stated amount of damages they believe are due; (b) with respect to the Oakland County and Genesee County lawsuits, the scope of permissible claims has not yet been determined and discovery regarding the amount of damages is still in the early stages; and (c) with respect to the other lawsuits, discovery regarding the amount of damages has not yet begun. FEDERAL HOME: Class Cert. Denied in Suit vs. Underwriters --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied in September a motion for class certification in a lawsuit alleging federal securities laws violations, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. By letter dated October 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding the company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock. On January 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Kreysar vs. Syron, et al. On April 30, 2009, the Court consolidated the Mark case with the Kreysar case, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July 2, 2009. The consolidated complaint alleged that three former Freddie Mac officers, certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's auditor violated federal securities laws by making material false and misleading statements in connection with the company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock. The complaint further alleged that certain defendants and others made additional false statements following the offering. The complaint named as defendants Syron, Piszel, Cook, Goldman, Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Securities Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. After the Court dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, amended consolidated complaint, and second consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated complaint against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Syron and Piszel, omitting Cook and the underwriter defendants, on November 14, 2010. On January 11, 2011, the Court granted the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, but denied the motion with respect to Syron and Piszel. On April 4, 2011, Piszel filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The Court granted that motion on April 28, 2011. The plaintiffs moved for class certification, which motion was ultimately denied by the Court. On May 31, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal the denial of class certification. In August 2012, plaintiffs sought leave to file another motion for class certification, which request the Court denied on September 25, 2012. Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution under the underwriting agreement in this case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel. At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the probable outcome of the lawsuit or any potential effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the matter due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the fact that plaintiffs may appeal the denial of class certification. Absent the certification of a specified class, the identification of a class period, and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss. FEDERAL HOME: Mich. AG & Treasury Claims in "Hertel" Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Claims asserted by the Michigan Department of Attorney General and the Michigan Department of Treasury in the lawsuit originally filed by Curtis Hertel were dismissed in September 2012, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On or about June 22, 2011, Curtis Hertel (individually and as Register of Deeds of Ingham County, Michigan) filed a lawsuit in Michigan state court against Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and others alleging, among other things, that the defendants failed to pay real estate transfer taxes on transfers of real property in Ingham County where the enterprises were the grantors and grantees. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as Conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the Michigan Department of Attorney General and the Michigan Department of Treasury intervened against the defendants. The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and then filed motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The Court dismissed plaintiff Hertel from the case concluding that Hertel was not a proper plaintiff. On September 18, 2012, the Court ruled in favor of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and FHFA on their motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment as to the claims asserted by the Michigan Department of Attorney General and the Michigan Department of Treasury, finding Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae exempt from the Michigan transfer taxes. At present, the Company says it is not possible for it to predict the probable outcome of these lawsuits or any potential effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operation. In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss with respect to these lawsuits due to the following factors, among others: (a) none of the plaintiffs have demanded a stated amount of damages they believe are due; (b) with respect to the Oakland County and Genesee County lawsuits, the scope of permissible claims has not yet been determined and discovery regarding the amount of damages is still in the early stages; and (c) with respect to the other lawsuits, discovery regarding the amount of damages has not yet begun. FEDERAL HOME: Discovery in "OPERS" Securities Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is still ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. The putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al., was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006, through November 20, 2007. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, risk management and the procedures it puts into place to protect the Company from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees. On April 10, 2008, the Court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel. On September 2, 2008, defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. On November 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On November 19, 2008, the Court granted the motion of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to intervene in its capacity as Conservator. On April 6, 2009, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On January 23, 2012, the Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2012, the plaintiff filed its third amended complaint, which included allegations based on a non-prosecution agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the SEC on December 15, 2011. On April 26, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. The Court denied the motions on May 25, 2012. All defendants have filed answers to the third amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing. At present, the Company says it is not possible for it to predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on the Company's business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the matter due to the following factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation; and the fact that the parties have not fully briefed and the Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent the certification of a class, the identification of a class period, and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss. FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Administratively Closed in June ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Jacoby vs. Syron, et al., was administratively closed in June 2012, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On December 16, 2011, the SEC announced that it had charged three former executives of Freddie Mac with securities laws violations. These executives are former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Richard F. Syron, former Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer Patricia L. Cook, and former Executive Vice President for the single-family guarantee business Donald J. Bisenius. On December 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain former Freddie Mac officers and others styled Jacoby vs. Syron, Cook, Piszel, Banc of America Securities LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and FTN Financial Markets. The complaint, as amended on December 17, 2008, contends that the defendants made material false and misleading statements in connection with Freddie Mac's September 2007 offering of non- cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred stock, and that certain former Freddie Mac officers made additional false statements following the offering. Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution under the Underwriting Agreement in this case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel. After a period of dormancy, the Court closed the case by administrative order on June 5, 2012. FEDERAL HOME: "Kuriakose" Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the class action entitled Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook have appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook is another putative class action lawsuit that was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on August 15, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 21, 2007, through August 5, 2008. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false and misleading statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and sought unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. On February 6, 2009, the Court granted the motion of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to intervene in its capacity as Conservator. On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 20, 2007, through September 7, 2008. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on February 24, 2010. On March 30, 2011, the Court granted without prejudice the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims, and allowed the plaintiffs the option to file a new complaint, which they did on July 18, 2011. On October 13, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On February 17, 2012, the plaintiffs served a motion seeking leave to file a third amended consolidated complaint based on the non-prosecution agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the SEC on December 15, 2011. On September 24, 2012, the Court granted with prejudice defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint in its entirety, denied plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint, and directed that the case be closed. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants on September 27, 2012. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 26, 2012. At present, the Company says it is not possible for it to predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the matter due to the following factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation in the event plaintiffs' appeal is granted and the case is remanded to the district court; and the fact that the parties have not briefed and the Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent the certification of a class, the identification of a class period, and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss. FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Defends Class Suits Over Handling of Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- First Acceptance Corporation is defending class action lawsuits over handling of claims made in connection with its insurance policies, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. The Company and its subsidiaries are named from time to time as defendants in various legal actions that are incidental to its business, including those which arise out of or are related to the handling of claims made in connection with its insurance policies and claims handling. The plaintiffs in some of these lawsuits have alleged bad faith or extra-contractual damages, and some have sought punitive damages or class action status. The Company believes that the resolution of these legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. However, the ultimate outcome of these matters is uncertain. FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Junk Faxes ------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that a Missouri cardiology practice has accused a Forest Laboratories Inc. unit of sending junk faxes advertising a blood pressure drug in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to a proposed class action removed to federal court on Nov. 30. St. Louis Heart Center Inc. says it received 40 junk faxes from the defendants between August 2010 and January 2011, in violation of the TCPA, which prohibits entities from sending or having an agent send unsolicited advertisements via fax. GENTIVA HEALTH: Final Hearing on "Wilkie" Suit Deal on March 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- Hearing on final court approval of Gentiva Health Services, Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by Catherine Wilkie is scheduled for March 25, 2013, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the Company in which a former employee alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and California law. The complaint alleged that the Company paid some of its employees on both a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to overtime pay. The complaint further alleged that California employees were subject to violations of state laws requiring meal and rest breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements and timely payment of wages. The plaintiff sought class certification, attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties and damages going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the state wage and hour claims. The parties held mediation discussions on August 3, 2011, and March 7, 2012. The parties have finalized the terms of a monetary settlement, and the Company has paid $5 million in escrow to settle all claims in the lawsuit, including the plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on October 5, 2012, and a hearing on the motion for final court approval of the settlement is scheduled for March 25, 2013. GEOEYE INC: Signed MOU in Oct. to Settle Merger-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- GeoEye, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding in October 2012 to settle a consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On July 22, 2012, GeoEye entered into an agreement and plan of merger, the Merger Agreement, with DigitalGlobe, Inc., pursuant to which GeoEye will be merged with and into DigitalGlobe, Inc. On August 30, 2012, GeoEye entered into an amendment to this Merger Agreement, which removes the reference to a requirement that the DigitalGlobe stockholders approve the assumption of GeoEye stock plans and the issuance of DigitalGlobe common stock thereunder, because there is no obligation to seek such approval pursuant to such plans, applicable law or stock exchange requirements. On October 30, 2012, the Company filed a Proxy Statement announcing a special meeting of GeoEye Stockholders to approve the adoption of such Merger Agreement. In July 2012, GeoEye and the GeoEye board of directors, DigitalGlobe, 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc. and WorldView, LLC were named as defendants in three purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuits were brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of all public holders of GeoEye common stock, excluding the defendants and, among others, their affiliates. The actions were captioned: Behnke v. GeoEye, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-CV-826- CMH-TCB, filed on July 26, 2012; Braendli v. GeoEye, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-CV-841-CMH-TRJ, filed on July 30, 2012; and Crow v. Abrahamson, et al., No. 1:12-CV-842-CMH-TCB, filed on July 30, 2012. On September 7, 2012, the Court ordered the consolidation of the three actions. The consolidated action is captioned: In re GeoEye, Inc., Shareholder Litigation, Consol. No. 1:12-cv-00826- CMH-TCB. The Court's consolidation order provided for, among other things, the appointment of the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP as members of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee of Lead Counsel ("Lead Counsel") and the setting of the defendants' response date to the amended complaint as 30 days after its filing. A corrected amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action on September 24, 2012. The amended complaint contains allegations that the GeoEye board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize stockholder value, agreeing to preclusive deal protection measures and failing to disclose certain information necessary to make an informed vote on whether to approve the proposed merger. DigitalGlobe is alleged to have aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. In addition, the amended complaint contains allegations that the GeoEye board of directors and DigitalGlobe violated Section 20(a) and Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by the filing of a Registration Statement allegedly omitting material facts and setting forth materially misleading information. The consolidated action seeks, among other things, a declaration that a class action is maintainable, an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger and an award of damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On September 28, 2012, Lead Counsel filed a motion for expedited discovery. On September 30, 2012, Lead Counsel made a confidential settlement demand requesting additional disclosures to address the alleged omissions raised in the amended complaint. On October 9, 2012, following arm's-length negotiations, the parties to the consolidated action entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to settle all claims asserted therein on a classwide basis. GeoEye and the GeoEye board of directors, DigitalGlobe, 20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc. and WorldView, LLC entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. In connection with the MOU, DigitalGlobe agreed to make additional disclosures in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 2012. The settlement set forth in the MOU includes a release of all claims against defendants alleged in the corrected amended complaint, and is subject to, among other items, the execution of a stipulation of settlement and court approval, as well as the Merger becoming effective under applicable law. Payments made in connection with the settlement, which are subject to court approval, are not expected to be material to GeoEye. GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC: Court Allows Paxil Class Action to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Kingston, writing for Macleans.ca, reports that a Supreme Court of British Columbia decision has paved way for Canada's first national class action lawsuit against the manufacturer of an antidepressant drug alleged to have caused birth defects in children born to women who took it during pregnancy. In the ruling dated Dec. 3, 2012, Faith Gibson of Surrey, B.C. was appointed "representative plaintiff" on behalf of a class defined as "any person in Canada, born with cardiovascular defects, to women who ingested Paxil while pregnant, and the mothers of those persons." In December 2002, Ms. Gibson was prescribed Paxil, a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline Inc. that was approved for use in Canada in 1993. She took it throughout her pregnancy; on Sept. 13, 2004, her daughter, Meah Bartram was born with a ventricular septal defect, more commonly known as a "hole in the heart." Lawyer David Rosenberg, of Vancouver's Rosenberg & Rosenberg will argue that GlaxoSmithKline knew or ought to have known of the risks and failed to provide adequate and timely warning to doctors and the public. In 2005, Health Canada sent out a warning in agreement with GlaxoSmithKline that advised infants exposed to Paxil in the first trimester had a higher risk of congenital malformations, specifically cardiovascular defects. Next up, says Rosenberg, is a "common issues trial" in which a judge decides for the entire class certain common issues, such as "Did Paxil increase likelihood of birth defects?" and "Did GlaxoSmithKline fail to adequately warn Health Canada of the risks." GlaxoSmithKline Inc. has 30 days to appeal the decision. GREENBERG TRAURIG: Female Attorneys File Gender Bias Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that female attorneys demand $200 million from Greenberg Traurig in a federal class action, claiming it engages in "systematic, firm-wide discriminatory treatment of its female shareholders on the basis of their gender." Francine Friedman Griesing, a former Greenberg Traurig attorney, sued the firm on behalf of a class of current and former female shareholders. "Shareholder" is Greenberg Traurig's equivalent to "partner" at other law firms, according to the complaint. Ms. Griesing, who was a low-ranking shareholder at the firm's Philadelphia office from April 2007 to January 2010, claims Greenberg Traurig fired her in retaliation for complaints of discriminatory employment practices. She says the firm "pays women less, promotes them at lower rates than men and virtually freezes them out from high-level managerial positions," and that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agrees. "In a June 28, 2012 determination, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ('EEOC') found 'reasonable cause to believe' that GT discriminated against its women attorneys in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act by compensating women -- including plaintiff Griesing -- less than similarly situated male counterparts and treating Ms. Griesing and class members less favorably than similarly situated male shareholders," the complaint states. "Such a finding is extremely rare. For example, in 2011, the EEOC found reasonable cause in only 3.8 percent of all investigations, including both individual and class charges. "Moreover, the EEOC also found that GT retaliated against Ms. Griesing because she raised concerns about GT's discrimination." Ms. Griesing says that Greenberg Traurig stands out even though discrimination against women is pervasive at large law firms, which, according to recent national surveys, compensate male partners on average $237,000 more per year than female partners, and deny female attorneys client-origination credit and other opportunities. "Yet even in a field dominated by archaic gender stereotypes, GT stands out for its culture of discrimination against female attorneys," the complaint states. "While the firm advertises a commitment to equal opportunity for female attorneys, the reality is far different. "The firm ranked 193 out of 221 top law firms in the number of female equity partners, according to the National Law Journal, 'Women in the Equity Partnership: How Firms Fare.' Indeed, women represent only 9.62 percent of GT's equity shareholders, well below the national average of 15 percent for AMLaw 200 and National Law Journal 250 firms. "GT's Philadelphia office, where plaintiff Griesing worked, exemplifies the firm's broad-based and engrained sexism. As the EEOC recognized, male shareholders in GT's Philadelphia office receive (a) more compensation than similarly situated female shareholders; (b) greater business-generating opportunities and internal referrals from other male shareholders; and (c) higher titles than similarly situated female shareholders. GT, in short, pays women less, promotes them at lower rates than men and virtually freezes them out from high-level managerial positions. "GT's gender disparities are neither coincidental nor limited to its Philadelphia office. One man, CEO Richard Rosenbaum ('CEO Rosenbaum'), makes all promotion and compensation decisions for each and every GT shareholder nationwide. CEO Rosenbaum consults with only four other high-ranking male GT shareholders on shareholder compensation: the executive chairman, the president, the chairman of the board and a regional operating shareholder. Together, these five men make up GT's compensation committee, a centralized brotherhood controlling who gets paid what at all times. "Greenberg Traurig has never had a female CEO, and, upon information and belief, has never had a female member of the compensation committee. "In addition, members of the compensation committee openly express animus toward female shareholders. For example, CEO Rosenbaum told Ms. Griesing that female shareholders in the Philadelphia office were 'worthless,' and that they are allowed to stay at the firm only because regional operating shareholder Michel Lehr ('Mr. Lehr' or 'Regional Operating Shareholder Lehr') 'liked to keep them around.' Mr. Lehr, who ran several offices (including Philadelphia) and served on the compensation committee, told female attorneys that only 'tall, male and Jewish' GT lawyers generate business. "At the same time, Mr. Lehr has admitted that there is 'no formula' for compensation and that it is entirely subjective, commenting that female shareholders are 'lucky' to get paid as much as they do. CEO Rosenbaum has echoed this admission, characterizing GT's compensation decisions as 'somewhat of an art form.' "GT conceals its arbitrary and discriminatory decision-making by using a 'closed' compensation system where decisions are made in a black box in order to shield from review, critique or appeal both its methodology (if any) and final decisions." Ms. Griesing has more than 30 years of experience in business counseling, complex litigation, alternate dispute resolution and government affairs, according to the complaint. She says she "performed exceptionally well" at Greenberg Traurig and was praised by Mr. Lehr, who told her she had "hit the ball out of the park" in generating business. Nevertheless, she claims, Greenberg Traurig assigned her and other female attorneys to lower shareholder levels than similar or lesser-qualified male attorneys. "For example, when the firm hired Ms. Griesing, it assigned her to the 300 level -- the lowest possible -- while the firm assigned similarly or less qualified males to the 500 level," the complaint states. "In fact, when Ms. Griesing joined GT, all but one of the female shareholders in the Pennsylvania office were assigned to the 300 level, even though many had more experience and better qualifications than several of the male shareholders assigned to the 500 level. Upon information and belief, the only female shareholder in the Philadelphia office at the 500 level at that time was involved in a long-term, intimate relationship with a highly placed, senior male shareholder. "By assigning women to lower levels and delaying their promotion, the firm denies its female shareholders compensation and opportunities to which they are otherwise entitled." Greenberg Traurig has three shareholder levels: 300 level, 500 level and 1,000 level. The firm assigns incoming attorneys to the 300 or 500 level, and requires them to spend at least 3 years at the 500 level before being eligible for the 1,000 level. The 1,000-level shareholders are the most highly paid and refer business to one another, increasing business generation and compensation for each other, according to the complaint. Ms. Griesing says Greenberg Traurig has no objective criteria for assigning or promoting shareholders, and makes excuses for promoting male shareholders over better-qualified female counterparts. "Accordingly, GT senior management can and does exploit the system to offer opportunities to male shareholders who are often less qualified than their female counterparts," Ms. Griesing says. "Even male shareholders who (a) are irresponsible, often absent and perform poorly due to various personal problems or (b) have substantially less professional, leadership or business development experience and lower financial contributions are assigned by GT into higher levels or are promoted over female shareholders like Ms. Griesing with exemplary records, significantly more experience and superior contributions." Ms. Griesing claims the firm pays female shareholders less than it pays their male peers and denies them opportunities to increase their origination and timekeeper revenue. She claims the firm "commonly and openly makes compensation decisions based on archaic assumptions that men were responsible for financially supporting a family," and unfairly evaluates women's performance because of their parenting duties. She says Greenberg Traurig has allowed male shareholders to form a "boys' club" which steers business their way through internal referrals, and excludes female shareholders from client pitches and associated origination and timekeeper revenue. And she claims the firm allocates resources and staff to male shareholders at the expense of female shareholders. Ms. Griesing claims that even though she generated more than $4 million in revenue for the firm, Greenberg Traurig underpaid her compared to male shareholders, and failed to increase her bonus according to her performance. She says the only women shareholders treated fairly at Greenberg Traurig are those in intimate relationships with firm management. "GT has one exception to its general practice of denying women professional development opportunities and compensating women less than men," the complaint states. "GT prioritizes, pays and promotes women who have intimate relationships with firm leaders or who acquiesce to sexualized stereotypes." After Ms. Griesing complained about the firm's discriminatory treatment, she says, Greenberg Traurig denied her equal access to client work and origination opportunities, refused to pay her on time, interfered with her relationship with other shareholders and associates, and threatened to sue her for defamation if she pursued her claims against the firm. She says the firm fired her in January 2010. Ms. Griesing filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC after CEO Rosenbaum told her that "he would not investigate her allegations unless she agreed to be 'happy' at the firm," according to the complaint. She says the EEOC found "reasonable cause to believe" that the firm retaliated against her after she complained about discrimination. She claims she suffered significant emotional distress due to Greenberg Traurig's discrimination and retaliation. Ms. Griesing seeks class certification, more than $200 million in back pay, front pay and compensatory and punitive damages for discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination, and wants the unlawful practices stopped. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Heisler, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5655 E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com HOME DEPOT: Recalls 3,700 Homer's All-Purpose Bucket Mugs --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Home Depot and Mr. Christmas Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a voluntary recall of about 3,700 mugs. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The silver-colored simulated bucket handle below the rim can spark when used in a microwave oven, posing a fire hazard. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recalled product is an orange ceramic mug about 4.5 inches tall with a large vertical cup handle on the side. The mug has the words "The Home Depot," "Homer's All-purpose Bucket" and a cartoon character with a utility bucket on the front. A silver- colored simulated bucket handle is just below the rim. The date "2012" and the words "(C) Mr. Christmas" and "Made in China" are on the underside of the mug. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13056.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Home Depot stores during October 2012 for about $5. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mug and return it to a Home Depot store for a full refund. Home Depot may be reached toll-free at (877) 527-0313, then select "Other Brands" at the prompt, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or http://www.homedepot.com/,then click on "Product Recalls." HUGOTON ROYALTY: Class Suit Appeals To Be Fully Briefed in 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------- Hugoton Royalty Trust disclosed in its November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it expects appeals from class certification orders in lawsuits pending in Kansas and Oklahoma to be fully briefed in early 2013. In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post- production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, including only Kansas and Oklahoma wells not part of the Fankhouser matter. After filing the motion to certify, but prior to the class certification hearing, the plaintiff filed a motion to sever the Oklahoma portion of the case so it could be transferred and consolidated with a newly filed class action in Oklahoma styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. This motion was granted. The Roderick case now comprises only Kansas wells not previously included in the Fankhouser matter. The case was certified as a class action in March 2012. XTO Energy has filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 2012, believing the class certification was not proper. The appeal was granted on June 26, 2012. It is expected that the matter will be fully briefed in early 2013 and the Court will rule at a time of its discretion. In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The case expressly excludes those claims and wells being prosecuted in the Fankhouser case. The severed Roderick case claims related to the Oklahoma portion of the case were consolidated into Chieftain. The case was certified as a class action in April 2012. XTO Energy has filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012, believing the class certification was not proper. The appeal was granted on June 26, 2012. It is expected that the matter will be fully briefed in early 2013 and the Court will rule at a time of its discretion. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO Energy has strong defenses to these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend its position. However, XTO Energy is cognizant of other, similar litigation involving it, such as Fankhouser, and other, unrelated entities. As these cases develop XTO Energy will assess its legal position accordingly. If XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments or receives a judgment against it in Chieftain or Roderick, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it believes that the terms of the conveyances covering the trust's net profits interests require the trust to bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment related to production from the underlying properties. Additionally, if the judgment or settlement increases the amount of future payments to royalty owners, XTO Energy has informed the trustee that the trust would bear its proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced net proceeds. In the event of any such settlement or judgment, the trustee intends to review any claimed reductions in payment to the trust based on the facts and circumstances of such settlement or judgment. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not currently expected to be material to the trust's financial position or liquidity though it could be material to the trust's annual distributable income. Additionally, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that any reductions would result in costs exceeding revenues on the properties underlying the net profit interests of the cases, as applicable, for several monthly distributions, depending on the size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and the net proceeds being paid at that time, which would result in the net profits interest being limited until such time that the revenues exceed the costs for those net profit interests. If there is a settlement or judgment and should XTO Energy and the trustee disagree concerning the amount of the settlement or judgment to be charged against the trust's net profits interests, the matter will be resolved by binding arbitration under the terms of the Indenture creating the trust through the American Arbitration Association. Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the lawsuit of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on December 1, 1998, between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee. HUGOTON ROYALTY: "Fankhouser" Suit Arbitration Hearing on May 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- An arbitration hearing in the class action lawsuit styled Fankhouser v. XTO Energy Inc. has been tentatively scheduled for May 13, 2013, according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. An amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma by certain royalty owners of natural gas wells in Oklahoma and Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are entitled and seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products produced, and for payment of the monies allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time. XTO Energy removed the case to federal district court in Oklahoma City. In April 2010, new counsel and representative parties, Fankhouser and Goddard, filed a motion to intervene and prosecute the Beer class, now styled Fankhouser v. XTO Energy Inc. This motion was granted on July 13, 2010. The new plaintiffs and counsel filed an amended complaint asserting new causes of action for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. On December 16, 2010, the court certified the class. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed by the parties and ruled on by the court. After consideration of the rulings by the court in March and April of 2012, some benefiting XTO Energy and some benefiting the plaintiffs, and with due regard to the vagaries of litigation and their uncertain outcomes, XTO Energy and the plaintiffs entered into settlement negotiations prior to trial and reached a tentative settlement of $37 million on April 23, 2012. This includes $1.4 million of a Kansas portion which predates the Trust and therefore has been excluded from Kansas net profits interest. The hearing for formal court approval was conducted on June 21, 2012, and preliminarily approved by the court on June 29, 2012. A fairness hearing was conducted on October 10, 2012, and the settlement was given final approval by the court. The court's order sets out the amount of attorneys' fees and costs awarded to the plaintiffs' counsel from the $37 million settlement. XTO Energy has advised the trustee it believes that the terms of the conveyances covering the trust's net profits interests require the trust to bear its 80% interest in the settlement, or approximately $28.5 million, of which $23.4 million will affect the net proceeds from Oklahoma and $5.1 million will affect the net proceeds from Kansas. If so, this will adversely affect the net proceeds of the trust from Oklahoma and Kansas and will result in costs exceeding revenues on these properties. XTO Energy began deducting the settlement amount with the September 2012 distribution. Based on the revised settlement allocation between Oklahoma and Kansas and recent revenue and expense levels, it is expected that the deductions XTO Energy has stated it has made, and will continue to make, will cause costs to exceed revenues for approximately 12 months on properties underlying the Oklahoma net profits interests and by approximately 7 years on properties underlying the Kansas net profits interests; however, changes in oil or natural gas prices or expenses could cause the time period to increase or decrease correspondingly. The net profits interest from Wyoming is unaffected and payments will continue to be made from those properties to the extent revenues exceed costs on such properties. XTO Energy has advised the trustee that the settlement is expected to decrease the amount of net profits going forward for the Oklahoma and Kansas properties due to changes in the way costs (such as gathering, compression and fuel) associated with operating the properties will be allocated, resulting in a net gain to the royalty interest owners. XTO Energy has advised the trustee that this expected net upward revision for the royalty interest owners will reduce applicable net profits to XTO Energy and, correspondingly, to the trust. The revision is expected to be calculated in early 2013 and at this time the impact is not fully determinable. The trustee has advised XTO Energy that all or a portion of the settlement amount should not be deducted from trust revenues. XTO Energy does not agree with the trustee's position and to resolve this disagreement XTO Energy initiated binding arbitration on August 1, 2012, in accordance with the terms of the dispute resolution provisions of the Trust Indenture. On August 17, 2012, the trustee filed its response to XTO's arbitration claim. All issues in the arbitration will be decided by a panel of three arbitrators (the "Tribunal"). Each side selected one arbitrator and the third arbitrator was selected by the other two appointed arbitrators. The arbitration will be administered by the American Arbitration Association under its commercial rules. The arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 13, 2013, in Fort Worth, Texas, if not sooner disposed of by the parties by agreement or by the Tribunal on motion. Because XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it began deducting the settlement in September, the trustee has reserved a total of $900,000 from trust distributions to help fund potential legal and other expenses relating to the arbitration. The trustee believes that without such a reserve, the trust is likely to be left without adequate resources to fund the costs of the arbitration out of monthly trust revenues. Because the potential expenses of arbitration are uncertain, especially at this early stage of the arbitration, it is possible that the reserve may not be sufficient to cover all of such expenses. The trustee requested that the Tribunal enjoin XTO Energy from continuing to deduct the Fankhouser settlement amount while the arbitration is pending. A hearing on the injunction was held on October 27, 2012. The Tribunal ordered that pending the issuance of a final award or further order of the Tribunal, XTO Energy should not treat any costs or expenses associated with the Fankhouser settlement as chargeable against the trust's net profit interest under the conveyances. The Tribunal denied the trust's request for an interim order directing XTO Energy to pay the trust the amounts offset against the trust's September and October 2012 distributions on the basis of the Fankhouser litigation. Based on this decision, deductions associated with the Fankhouser settlement was suspended starting in November 2012. Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the lawsuit of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on December 1, 1998, between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee. HUGOTON ROYALTY: Motions to Dismiss "Lamb" Suit Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- XTO Energy Inc.'s motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced by Harold Lamb remain pending, according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On September 12, 2012, a lawsuit was filed against Bank of America, N.A., as trustee and XTO Energy styled Harold Lamb v. Bank of America and XTO Energy Inc., in the U.S. District Court - Western District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Harold Lamb, is a unitholder in the trust and alleges that XTO Energy failed to properly pay and account to the trust under the terms of the net overriding royalty conveyance on certain Kansas and Oklahoma properties and that Bank of America, as trustee, failed to properly oversee such payment and accounting by XTO Energy. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that Bank of America and XTO Energy have breached a fiduciary duty to the trust based on the allegations found in the Fankhouser class action. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts for actual/compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement and injunctive relief. Subsequently, the plaintiff dismissed Bank of America from the lawsuit. XTO Energy has filed a motion to transfer venue in an effort to move the case from Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. XTO has also filed two motions to dismiss. Certain of the underlying properties are involved in various other lawsuits and certain governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these claims will have a material effect on the financial position or liquidity of the trust, but may have an effect on annual distributable income. Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the lawsuit of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on December 1, 1998, between XTO Energy Inc., as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee. JEFFERIES GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Acquisition by Leucadia -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Lasker Ira, On behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Jefferies Group, Inc., Leucadia National Corporation, Richard B. Handler, Brian P. Friedman, Ian G. Cumming, Joseph S. Steinberg, W. Patrick Campbell, Richard G. Dooley, Robert E. Joyal, and Michael T. O'Kane, Case No. 653924/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 14, 2012) seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on November 12, 2012, pursuant to which Leucadia would acquire all outstanding shares of Jefferies. The complaint asserts that the Proposed Transaction is the result of a flawed self-dealing process by Jefferies, Leucadia and their boards of directors. The Plaintiff asserts that the Proposed Transaction resulted from the Board's failure to maximize shareholder value and deprived Jefferies' public shareholders of the ability to participate in its favorable long-term prospects in order to unfairly benefit Leucadia and the Individual Defendants. The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Jefferies. Jefferies is a Delaware corporation based in New York. Jefferies operates as a securities and investment banking firm in two business segments, Capital Markets and Asset Management. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jules Brody, Esq. Aaron Brody, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: jbrody@ssbny.com abrody@ssbny.com JOTUL NORTH: Recalls 1,250 Jotul and Scan Gas Fireplace Inserts --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Jotul North America, of Gorham, Maine, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,200 Jotul and Scan gas fireplace inserts in the United States of America and 50 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The fireplace insert's electrical wiring can come into contact with the metal rating plate on the insert, posing electrical shock and burn hazards to consumers. The firm has received one report of an electric shock and burn injury with the recalled fireplace inserts. This recall involves four models of Jotul and Scan brand gas fireplace inserts. These inserts fit into existing vented fireplaces providing a variety of fireplace effects fueled by natural gas or liquid propane. The fireplace inserts are cast iron or steel and have a glass front, ceramic fiber logs, a gas burner and an electrical cord. They measure about 17 inches by 32 inches. The model and serial numbers are located on a metal rating plate inside the bottom front panel of the fireplace insert. Model Model Names Numbers Serial Numbers ----------- ------- -------------- Jotul GI 450 DVII 350860 30001 through 31056 Jotul GI 450 DV TSI 350861 30001 through 31056 Scan 45i 350862 1001 through 1182 Scan 45i TSI 350866 1001 through 1182 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13055.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at independent specialty fireplace and stove stores nationwide and in Canada from June 2010 through September 2012 for about $2,200. Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled gas fireplace inserts before checking the unit's model and serial numbers. Contact the store where purchased or Jotul directly to schedule a free repair. Jotul North America may be reached at (800) 797-5912, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.jotul.com/and click on Consumer Bulletin for more information. KIRBY CORP: To File Response to Rescue Mission's Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Kirby Corporation disclosed in its November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it is still preparing its response to the class action complaint filed by Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc., et al. On July 1, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P. ("K-Sea"), an operator of tank barges and tugboats participating in the coastal transportation primarily of refined petroleum products in the United States. On April 17, 2012, the Company changed the name of K-Sea to Kirby Offshore Marine, LLC ("Kirby Offshore Marine") to more fully integrate the Company's coastal operations with the Company's inland marine transportation operations. On January 30, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in a case styled Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc., et al. v. John J. Nicola, et al., the Company, its subsidiary, K- Sea, and current and former officers and directors of K-Sea were named defendants in a putative class action complaint asserting that during the period of January 30, 2009, to January 27, 2010, K-Sea allegedly failed to disclose certain facts regarding K-Sea's operations and financial condition, and asserting violations of Sections 10(b)(5) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs filed its Amended Consolidated Complaint on behalf of the class on July 9, 2012. The Company says it is preparing its response to the Complaint. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter based on the information available to the Company at this time. The Company does not expect the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements; however, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this matter. Founded in 1921 and headquartered in Houston, Texas, Kirby Corporation -- http://www.kirbycorp.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides marine transportation and diesel engine services primarily in the United States. L&L ENERGY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Mills" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- L&L Energy, Inc. on Dec. 3 disclosed that the United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle granted the Company's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit (Mills vs. L&L Energy, Inc., Case No. C11-1423RSL) filed against L&L and several of its officers and directors. The lawsuit was based on internet reports published by short sellers. L&L denied the accusations contained in these reports. In the lawsuit, L&L and the other defendants filed a motion with the court to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, which was granted on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a violation of federal securities law. While the plaintiffs may seek the court's permission to file an amended complaint, the following comments from the judge were favorable to L&L: "The record suggests that the plaintiff does not have the necessary evidence of intentional falsehood and loss causation: he has already had two opportunities to amend the complaint and some of the deficiencies identified in this order have been apparent from the outset. The court is loath to grant leave to amend where the particulars of the amendment are unknown and the existing record suggests futility." L&L's Chairman and CEO, Dickson Lee commented, "We are very pleased with the court's favorable ruling supporting L&L's motion to dismiss. I congratulate management's discipline to fight the false accusations while remaining focused on growing the company and shareholder value. I believe that L&L is better positioned and is to becoming a leader in the coal sector of a growing Chinese economy." LOGITECH INT'L: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved in September 2012 a stipulation and proposed order submitted by parties dismissing with prejudice a class action lawsuit against Logitech International S.A., according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On May 23, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against Logitech International S.A. and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of individuals who purchased Logitech shares between October 28, 2010, and April 1, 2011. The complaint relates to Logitech's disclosure on March 31, 2011, that its results for fiscal year 2011 would fall below expectations and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the defendants. The action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 28, 2011. The California Court appointed a lead plaintiff on October 27, 2011. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 9, 2012, which expanded the alleged class period to between October 28, 2010, and September 22, 2011. On July 13, 2012, the California Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with leave to amend. On September 28, 2012, the Court approved a stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties dismissing the case with prejudice. NEW YORK CITY: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras -------------------------------------------------------- According to CBS News, New York City is facing a class-action lawsuit. The city is accused of rigging the lights to catch more drivers and write more tickets. CBS News reported recently on those red light cameras that snap a picture of your license plate if you run the light. They're so-called "gotcha" cameras, mounted at intersections. Their photos catch and help ticket drivers running red lights. New York City had them first in 1998. Robert Sinclair, AAA motor club New York spokesperson said, "Red light cameras are to prevent the very dangerous, so called, T-Bone crashes, where you have the front of vehicle running into the side of another. We are in favor, in concept, of the red light cameras, but they have to be done to certain engineering criteria." By federal law, drivers have to have enough time to get through a yellow light -- three seconds at the typical 30-mile-per-hour intersection. Back in October, engineers at AAA New York discovered a problem. At some city intersections with the cameras, the yellow lights were almost a half-second too fast. Red light violators who later had to pay up now feel set up. Mr. Sinclair said, "Well, when the amber lights are too short, people are getting cited, we think, unfairly. If you're timing them too short, then it just becomes a revenue enhancement tool and it erodes support for a red-light camera program." Brian Hughes paid a $50 fine after a camera caught him running a light in Manhattan in 2010. Mr. Hughes said, "A $50 ticket, might not seem like a lot to some people, but to me it's a lot at the end of the day, and so it makes me overly hesitant when I drive." Mr. Hughes is part of a class-action suit, alleging fraud against the City of New York and its 150 red light cameras. They helped generate more than $235 million in fine revenue during the last five years -- $47 million in the last year alone. Attorney Joseph Santoli said, "The city, in this case, and many other municipalities have a great incentive to shorten the duration of the yellow lights." The New York City Department of Transportation in a statement said, "There has been no substantiation that any red-light cameras in this report were improperly timed or led to any violation being issued incorrectly." But this past June, New Jersey suspended its entire red light camera program. Turns out, 63 of its 85 cameras gave drivers too little time to make the yellow light, as required by state law. "It's making it worse drivers," one driver told New York CBS station WCBS. "Because if you stop short, you're gonna get hit in the back. So you gotta take the light and then you're got to pay for a ticket. Bad!" In the U.S., 540 communities use red light cameras. But with their lawsuit, as many as 6 million ticketed New York drivers have a message for the city: not so fast. NEW YORK LIFE: Sued by Insurance Agents Over Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Avraham Gold, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New York Life Insurance Co., New Life Insurance and Annuity Corp., NYLife Insurance Co. of Arizona, NYLife Securities LLC (f/k/a NYLife Securities, Inc.), John Does 1-50 (said names being fictitious individuals), and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-50 (said names being fictitious companies, partnerships, joint ventures and/or corporations), Case No. 653923/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 14, 2012) is brought on behalf of all insurance agents, who were or are employed by New York Life in the state of New York at any time from April 2, 2003, through the date of judgment. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated his and Class members' rights under the New York Labor Law and its enacting regulations in the New York State's Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") by, among other things, failing to pay Class members any overtime compensation, which is required under Section 142-2.2 of the NYCRR. He adds that the Defendants also violated the New York Labor Law by failing to pay Class members the minimum wage for every hour worked during periods when a Class member earned few or no commissions. Mr. Gold is a resident in Kings County, New York. He was employed by New York Life as an insurance agent and registered representative of the Defendants, who provided financial advice to clients in connection with the Defendants' sales of insurance, securities and other, often complex and sophisticated financial products. New York Life Insurance Company is a mutual company organized in the state of New York. New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation is a Delaware corporation. NYLIFE Insurance Company of Arizona is an Arizona corporation with its statutory home office in Scottsdale, Arizona. New York Life Insurance and Annuity and NYLIFE Insurance are wholly owned domestic insurance subsidiaries of the New York Life Insurance Company. NYLIFE Securities, previously known as NYLIFE Securities Inc., is a Delaware limited liability company and is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of New York Life Insurance Company. NYLIFE Securities LLC is a registered broker-dealer. Throughout the Class Period, New York Life maintained offices in New York. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants and the ABC Corporations are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Halebian, Esq. Adam C. Mayes, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP Midtown Office 317 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 Facsimile: (212) 208-6806 E-mail: jhalebian@lshllp.com - and - James V. Bashian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN, P.C. 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700 New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 921-4110 Facsimile: (212) 921-4249 E-mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com - and - Kenneth A. Elan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN 217 Broadway, Suite 606 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 619-0261 Facsimile: (212) 385-2707 E-mail: kenneth@elanlaw.com NUFARM: Uncertainty Remains Following Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers Weekly reports that Maurice Blackburn has settled a shareholder class action with agricultural company Nufarm for AUD46.6 million, up from AUD43.5 million announced in August, avoiding a potential court ruling on indirect causation and loss calculation, but Jason Geisker, principal at Maurice Blackburn, told Lawyers Weekly that with so few shareholder class actions making it to final judgment there is no guidance on assessing damages for an alleged breach of continuous disclosure obligations. Mr. Geisker believes this may be one of the reasons Nufarm agreed to pay an extra AUD3.1 million to facilitate a settlement relatively early on in the proceedings. "It becomes very risky for the parties to go forward to a trial and final judgment not knowing what the ultimate outcome will be on the law and not knowing which way the judge will go on the approach to loss," he said. More than 3000 Nufarm shareholders, including investment banks, super funds and 'mum and dad' investors, alleged the company's profit forecast of between AUD110 million and AUD130 million for 2009-10 was misleading or deceptive. Shares dropped from AUD5.35 per share to AUD3.25 per share in one week after the company reduced its profit guidance to between AUD55 million and AUD65 million. Mr. Geisker believes claimants should be able to rely on indirect causation when arguing that misleading or deceptive conduct resulted in shares being purchased at an inflated price. But Australian law's position on this issue has not been determined by the courts, he added. While Mr. Geisker claimed uncertainty doesn't work in any party's favor, if an Australian court rejects indirect causation then plaintiffs may face the tougher task of proving they relied on the misleading or deceptive information. There aren't rigid rules on loss calculation either. Generally, loss is the difference between the 'true value' of the shares at the time of purchase and the actual price paid but, according to Mr. Geisker, in some circumstances it is more appropriate for loss to be calculated as the difference between the price paid for the shares and whatever is 'left in hand' upon a sale of the shares. Other loss measures have included: the difference between the price at which the shareholder bought their interest and the market price that would have prevailed but for the contraventions, and the loss of opportunity to achieve a reasonable rate of return on the money used to purchase the interest in the securities. "The numbers can be vastly different depending on the loss calculation, so it's prudent for companies to try and resolve the litigation if they can rather than take the risk that they're wrong about their view of loss and causation and end up paying significantly more," said Mr. Geisker. If companies heed Mr. Geisker's warning, it may be some time before a method of loss calculation is supported by case law. "If you're an investor it's not in your interest to have your money tied up in the courts for a long wait for what might be the same or less return . . . [and] even a final judgment would probably not determine the rights of the parties, with appeals likely all the way up to the High Court." Even though Nufarm, by settling, avoided an admission of fault, Mr. Geisker claimed that class actions still act as a financial deterrent against companies engaging in unlawful conduct. Two class action claims were commenced against Nufarm -- one by Maurice Blackburn in 2010, the other by Slater and Gordon in early 2011. These actions were consolidated in August 2011. They have since been jointly prosecuted by the two law firms, which Mr. Geisker described as a "novel process". ONE WORLD: Judge Narrows Coconut Water Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge on Nov. 30 trimmed claims from a consumer class action accusing One World Co. LLC of overstating the electrolyte content of its O.N.E. brand coconut water, dismissing a lab report on which plaintiffs based warranty allegations. Judge Cormac J. Carney determined that plaintiffs Patrick Vital and Russell Marchweka have failed to provide evidence that a ConsumerLab.com LLC report on which their claims are based was conducted in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. POPULAR COMMUNITY: Sued Over Imposition of Overdraft Charges ------------------------------------------------------------ Josefina Valle and Wilfredo Valle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Popular Community Bank f/k/a Banco Popular North America a/k/a Banco Popular North America, Case No. 653936/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 14, 2012) challenges the practices of Popular concerning its imposition of overdraft loan interest and fees on customer deposit accounts. The Plaintiffs allege that Popular engages in unlawful methods, acts, practices and conduct by making "courtesy" overdraft loans to and imposing Overdraft Charges on its deposit customers without prior customer approval. They add that Popular failed to disclose prior to the completion of the transaction that ATM withdrawals and electronic debit card transactions would cause the customer's account to become overdrawn and subject to its Overdraft Charges and loans. Josefina Valle and her son, Wilfredo Valle, are residents of Bronx, New York. They have maintained deposit accounts with Popular in New York, including a Popular Relationship Savings account, which was accessible using a Popular-issued ATM/debit card. Popular is a New York-chartered trust company or banking corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the state of New York, and is headquartered in Broadway, New York. Popular engages in the business of consumer and commercial banking within New York, with additional branch operations in California, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Guglielmo, Esq. Joseph Cohen, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: guglielmo@scott-scott.com jcohen@scott-scott.com - and - David R. Scott, Esq. Erin G. Comite, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT LLP 156 South Main Street PO Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com ecomite@.scott-scott.com - and - Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. 1979 Marcus Avenue, Suite 210 Lake Success, NY 11042 Telephone: (516) 622-2212 Facsimile: (516) 706-1373 E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com PREMIER FOODS: Framework Set for Bread Price-Fixing Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nickolaus Bauer, writing for Mail & Guardian, reports that the framework has been set for the launching of class action lawsuits within the South African legal system after a landmark ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein last week. Legal experts and practitioners on Dec. 3 hailed the court's overturning of a 2011 Western Cape High Court decision not to provide a class certificate to litigants seeking a class action legal case against bread cartels found guilty of price fixing in 2007. Premier Foods, Tiger Brands, and Pioneer Foods were all fingered for collusion in setting the price of retail bread in the Western Cape, after then independent bread distributor Imraahn Mukaddam blew the whistle on the trio's crooked activities. A week before Christmas in 2006 three separate bakeries linked to each respective company simultaneously raised bread prices by 35c per white loaf and 37c per brown loaf. After an exhaustive investigation by the competition commission, all three companies were slapped with multimillion-rand fines for their roles in the price fixing. In law, a class action is a form of lawsuit whereby a group of people can collectively bring a claim to court against a single or group of defendants in the hopes of them being sued. Until now there was no monetary or legal basis in South Africa for those personally or professionally affected by collusion to be reimbursed or compensated. But Mr. Mukaddam -- now coordinator for the Western Cape consumer forum -- along with representatives from Black Sash, the Children's Resource Centre, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the National Consumer Forum and several individual bread consumers are hoping this ruling will change that. Mr. Mukaddam told the Mail & Guardian that while any monetary incentive realized through a class action lawsuit will be managed by a trust that will aim to support small to medium bakeries in the Western Cape, as well as uplifting poor people through feeding schemes, this legal battle was more about holding big business to account for their actions. "This isn't just about the money. It's about setting a precedent whereby we tell companies that consumers can't be taken for granted and taken advantage of ever again," he said. Dali Mpofu, secretary general of Advocates for Transformation, said the group's crusade will go a long way in determining the future of class action legal cases in the future. "While the general view of our courts has been to encourage class action lawsuits, there has never been a firm legal precedent set with a view to bringing them into action, and this ruling could change that," he said. Mr. Mpofu added the case has an opportunity to set a constitutional precedent in terms of upholding the rights of South African citizens. "The Constitution introduced the concept of rights to legal recourse in this country, so this has the potential to deepen the reach of the Constitution by actually seeing it in action," he said. But while the introduction of class action framework to the South African legal system could be seen as a positive move, it brings with it possible challenges and problems too. The abuses that have arisen in the United States' legal system with mass and class actions have been largely driven by the potential payoff for not only the litigants affected by the actions of those being sued, but also by their legal representative. A study by the research firm Tillinghast Towers-Perrin estimated that class action litigation system in the US amounts to $252- billion annually -- putting massive pressure on companies forced to allocate billions in potential legal fees every year. Additionally, exploitations that have arisen in the US with class actions have resulted in massive fees being awarded to lawyers as the more plaintiffs a lawyer can recruit, the greater the potential payoff. Chris Hart, chief economist at Investment Solutions, said that while class action lawsuits provided the opportunity to challenge "otherwise untouchable monoliths", it could be abused. "It's all fair and well allowing this into law to promote good service delivery and performance. But how can we assure it doesn't become a vehicle for extortion as it has done in other international legal systems?" Mr. Hart told the M&G. Mr. Hart said that if class action legal challenges become more common in South Africa, they would have to be monitored to ward off exploitation. But Mr. Mpofu dismissed Mr. Hart's suggestion, saying the positives of this development outweighed the negatives. "Maybe the floodgates should be opened," he said. "We can't justify a conservative approach to the law when the access to legal recourse and justice is enshrined in our Constitution." RETAIL PROPERTIES: Defends Class Suits Brought by Stockholders -------------------------------------------------------------- Retail Properties of America, Inc. is defending class action lawsuits brought by stockholders, according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. In 2012, certain stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company's directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders and, as a result, unjustly enriched the Company and the individual defendants. The lawsuits further allege that the breaches of fiduciary duty led certain stockholders to acquire additional stock and caused the stockholders to suffer a loss in share value, all measured in some manner by reference to the Company's 2012 offering price when it listed its shares on the New York Stock Exchange. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages and other relief. Based on its initial review of the complaints, the Company believes the lawsuits to be without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously. While the resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes, based on currently available information, that the final outcomes of these matters will not have a material effect on the financial statements of the Company. RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Refuses to Rehear Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied in October 2012 a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in connection with the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit against Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. 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 its February 2008 public offering of common stock (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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (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. On September 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. On September 27, 2012, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On October 25, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend this 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 the Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of this lawsuit, and the Company may not prevail. Monitoring and defending 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, if any, and the Company 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. A reserve may be required in the future due to new developments with respect to the pending lawsuit, patent claims or changes in approach such as a change in or establishment of a settlement strategy in dealing with these matters, when a loss becomes probable and is estimable. SINO-FOREST CORP: E&Y Faces OSC Allegations Following Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Koven and Barbara Shecter, writing for Financial Post, report that the Ontario Securities Commission has targeted one of Canada's biggest accounting firms, bypassing the industry's watchdog and taking the lead in a crackdown on "gatekeepers" of foreign companies listed on Canadian stock exchanges. A nine-page statement of allegations filed on Dec. 3 accuses Ernst & Young LLP of failing to meet industry standards through its audits of timber firm Sino-Forest Corp. and failing to perform sufficient work to verify the existence and ownership of Sino's most significant assets. It also emerged on Dec. 3 that Ernst & Young has agreed to pay a record $117-million to settle a shareholder class-action lawsuit related to the Sino case. It is the biggest class-action settlement with an auditor in Canadian history. The two events put E&Y's oversight of Sino-Forest in the spotlight. The disgraced Canadian timber company was worth more than $6-billion before it was felled last year by allegations that it overstated its timber assets in China. Following a regulatory probe last spring of two dozen companies listed in Canada with substantial operations overseas, the OSC pinpointed shortcomings among "gatekeepers" such as auditors and underwriters. The move against Ernst & Young shows the regulator is putting its own muscle behind its efforts to beef up scrutiny of emerging-market companies. "A major focus [of the Sino investigation] has been on whether gatekeepers such as auditors and other corporate advisors properly performed their role in protecting investors," said Tom Atkinson, director of enforcement at the OSC. "If auditors fail to abide by Canadian auditing standards and securities laws, we will hold them accountable." None of the allegations has been proven. For its part, Ernst & Young issued a statement on Dec. 3 that said it co-operated with the OSC on the Sino-Forest investigation and is confident its work was conducted in accordance with auditing and professional standards. "The evidence we will present to the OSC will show that Ernst & Young Canada did extensive audit work to verify ownership and existence of Sino-Forest's timber assets," the statement said. Securities lawyers say it is rare, though not unprecedented, for the regulator to go after a "gatekeeper" such as an underwriter or auditor. Two previous OSC enforcement actions that targeted auditors, one dating back to the 1990, were both settled. In the E&Y case filed on Dec. 3, the commission claims it has found significant evidence that the firm did not go far enough to prove that Sino-Forest's stated timber holdings exist. For example, the OSC alleges that E&Y never obtained two key elements of Sino's purchase contracts: the villagers' letter of authorization and the certificate of forest proprietorship. The precise location of the forestry assets was also not described in the purchase contracts. "Both of these deficiencies should have prompted Ernst & Young to make further enquiries of Sino-Forest management and to perform further audit procedures," the OSC said. E&Y also relied too heavily on the valuation work done on Sino's assets by a Chinese firm called Poyry Forest Industry Ltd., the OSC said. It believes E&Y did not do enough work to confirm that the plantations Poyry visited were actually owned by Sino-Forest. There is evidence that E&Y staff were concerned about the issue. Documents filed by the OSC include an e-mail exchange between two E&Y auditors who both said that Poyry "could show us trees anywhere and we would not know the difference." The OSC is also concerned about the audit team itself. It noted that several of the senior E&Y partners involved in the Sino- Forest audits did not speak Chinese, and the firm did not translate many of the key Sino-Forest documents into English. Brian Hunt, chief executive of the Canadian Public Accountability Board, which inspects firms for audit quality, declined to comment on the OSC action against E&Y. "It's before the Commission now," he said. Dimitri Lascaris, a lawyer at Siskinds LLP who was involved in the class action lawsuit, said he believes the $117-million settlement with E&Y is more than double the size of any other reached in Canada with an auditing firm. "It had to do primarily with the facts underlying the case and E&Y's desire to move on and not be embroiled in years of extraordinarily risky and costly litigation," Mr. Lascaris said in an interview. "To the credit of E&Y, it came to the table and paid a very substantial level of compensation relatively quickly," Mr. Lascaris said. In a case of interesting timing, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 3 accused Chinese affiliates of five major global accounting firms of violating securities laws. The SEC says their Chinese affiliates refused to produce audit documents in connection with fraud investigations into unnamed companies. Business and audit practices in China are the common thread in the North American regulatory actions, said Jacob Frenkel, a partner at law firm Shulman Rogers and a former SEC enforcement lawyer. He said regulators in both Canada and the U.S. are cracking down on "reliance on outsourced professionals" and local affiliates. "These practices have been industry-wide," Mr. Frenkel said, adding that "unfortunately it's not until something goes wrong on a large scale" that regulators tend take action. The OSC's action against E&Y is the second enforcement action taken by the regulator in the case. On May 22, the OSC accused Sino-Forest and former senior executives of fraud. Those proceedings are ongoing. STOP & SHOP: Recalls Veggie Patch Ultimate Meatless Burgers ----------------------------------------------------------- The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, following a recall by Veggie Patch, announced it removed from sale packages of ultimate meatless burgers due to possible contamination by Listeria monocytogenes. The following product is included in this recall: * Veggie Patch Ultimate Meatless Burger, UPC 61012900211, 9 oz., sell by date of January 12, 2013 Stop & Shop has received no reports of illnesses to date. Customers who have purchased the product should discard any unused portions and bring their purchase receipt to Stop & Shop for a full refund. Listeria is a common organism found in nature. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease. Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy. Consumers looking for additional information on the recall may call Veggie Patch customer service at 1-888-698-3444. In addition, customers may call Stop & Shop Customer Service at (800) 767-7772 for more information. Customers can also visit the Stop & Shop Web site at http://www.stopandshop.com/ About Stop & Shop The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC employs approximately 62,000 associates and operates more than 400 stores throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey. The Company helps support local communities fight hunger, combat childhood cancer and promote general health and wellness -- with emphasis on children's educational and support programs. In its commitment to be a sustainable company, Stop & Shop is a member of the U.S. Green Building Council and EPA's Smart Way program; has been awarded LEED (EB) certifications for 50 of its existing stores; and has been recognized by the EPA for the superior energy management of its stores. Stop & Shop is an Ahold company. To learn more about Stop & Shop, visit http://www.stopandshop.com/ UNITED STATES: Vietnam Veterans Join Class Action in Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Christoffersen, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a Vietnam veterans advocacy group says in a federal lawsuit in Connecticut the military has failed to correct the wrongful discharges of thousands of veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The 65,000-member Vietnam Veterans of America on Dec. 3 joined a proposed class action lawsuit against the Army, Navy and Air Force. The lawsuit was filed last year by a veteran from New Haven. It says Vietnam veterans suffered PTSD before the condition was recognized and were discharged under other-than-honorable conditions that made them ineligible for disability compensation and other benefits. The U.S. attorney's office says it's reviewing the matter and will respond in court. A Department of Defense spokeswoman says the agency is committed to addressing concerns related to PTSD and has conducted assessments of service members at military treatment facilities. URS Corporation: Expects 2013 Ruling in Hurricane Katrina Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- A decision is expected in 2013 in some of the class action lawsuits related to Hurricane Katrina, according to URS Corporation's November 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 28, 2012. From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International, Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary acquired by the Company on November 15, 2007, performed demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New Orleans, Louisiana. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The storm surge created by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city. Fifty-nine personal injury and property damage class action lawsuits were filed in Louisiana State and federal court against several defendants, including WGI Ohio, seeking $200.0 billion in damages plus attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs are residents and property owners who claim to have incurred damages from the breach and failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. All 59 lawsuits were pleaded as class actions but none have yet been certified as class actions. Along with WGI Ohio, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company were also named as defendants along with WGI Ohio. At this time WGI Ohio and the Army Corps of Engineers are the remaining defendants. These 59 lawsuits, along with other hurricane-related cases not involving WGI Ohio, were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District Court"). Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent in their design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees. Specifically, as to WGI Ohio, plaintiffs allege that work WGI Ohio performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall, causing or contributing to breaches and flooding. WGI Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane Katrina. Rather, WGI Ohio performed work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government. WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal on grounds that government contractors are immune from liability. On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion for summary judgment, but several plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Court of Appeals") on April 27, 2009. On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further litigation. On August 1, 2011, the District Court decided that the government contractor immunity defense would not be available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an issue for appeal. Five of the cases were tried in District Court from September 12, 2012, through October 3, 2012. A decision is expected in 2013. WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously; however, WGI Ohio cannot provide assurance that it will be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss and the resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time primarily due to the unknown number of individual plaintiffs who are actually asserting claims against WGI Ohio; the uncertainty regarding the nature and amount of each individual plaintiff's damage claims; uncertainty concerning legal theories and factual bases that plaintiffs may present and their resolution by courts or regulators; and uncertainty about the plaintiffs' claims, if any, that might survive certain key motions of the Company's affiliate, as well as a number of additional factors. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits OK of Indirect Purchasers Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of claims in an antitrust complaint filed by indirect purchasers over Wellbutrin XL(R), according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. On April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company's parent Biovail Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline plc, and SmithKline Beecham Inc. (the latter two of which are referred to here as "GSK") seeking damages and alleging that Biovail and GSK took actions to improperly delay FDA approval for generic forms of Wellbutrin XL(R). In late May and early June 2008, additional direct and indirect purchaser class actions were also filed against Biovail and GSK in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all making similar allegations. After motion practice, the complaints were consolidated, resulting in a lead direct purchaser and a lead indirect purchaser action, and the Court ultimately denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaints. The Court granted direct purchasers' motion for class certification, and certified a class consisting of all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Wellbutrin XL(R) directly from any of the defendants at any time during the period of November 14, 2005, through August 31, 2009. Excluded from the class are defendants and their officers, directors, management, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and federal government entities. Further excluded from the class are persons or entities who have not purchased generic versions of Wellbutrin XL(R) during the class period after the introduction of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL(R). The Court granted in part and denied in part the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The defendants have asked the Third Circuit to review the class certification. After extensive discovery, briefing and oral argument, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, and deferred ruling on the remaining claim. Following the summary judgment decision, the Company entered into binding settlement arrangements with both plaintiffs' classes to resolve all existing claims against the Company. The total settlement amount payable is $49.25 million. In addition, the Company will pay up to $500,000 toward settlement notice costs. These charges were recognized in the second quarter of 2012, within Legal settlements in the consolidated statements of income (loss). The settlements require Court approval. The direct purchaser class filed its motion for preliminary approval of its settlement on July 23, 2012. The hearing on final approval of that settlement was on November 7, 2012. The indirect purchaser class is expected to file its motion for preliminary approval in the fourth quarter of 2012, with a hearing on final approval of that settlement likely to be held in the first quarter of 2013. WET SEAL: Guilty of Employee Discrimination, EEOC Probes Show ------------------------------------------------------------- Human Resources Journal reports that Wet Seal, the fashion retailer, continues to be beset with problems. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said that investigations have confirmed that the clothier discriminated against a former African American store manager. It said that Nicole Cogdell, a former employee who worked at one of the company's stores in Pennsylvania, quit work, as the working environment became increasingly intimidating and conditions so unendurable that she was left with no other choice. The commission found further evidence that Wet Seal corporate managers were not guarded in their views that to ensure that the company had good bottom lines, it was imperative that they retained workers with "the Armani look." The "Armani look" purportedly referring to the attractive features of its models, who were typically blond, thin and blue-eyed, and marketed by the youthful fashion label created by Italian designer Giorgio Armani. The EEOC said it would look for "a just resolution of this matter" through negotiations. So much so that one top-ranking executive even sent an e-mail to his subordinates that the high proportion of African American workers at the company was a "huge issue." This proven bias against an entire group of its African American workers could ensure that the firm faces more discrimination lawsuits, including more class-action lawsuits that could entail embarrassing censure and huge financial penalties. The lawsuit accuses Wet Seal of refusing promotions and pay to its black employees to harass them and perhaps provoke them into leaving. Moreover, it says that they showed a distinct preference for employing white workers who suited the company's image more. Ms. Cogdell, who is one of the plaintiffs, claims that she was fired after a senior vice president for store operations during a visit to the company expressed her opinion that the manager should have "blond hair and blue eyes." ReNika Moore, one of the lawyers representing Ms. Cogdell, said that the commission's findings would be valuable evidence in court and can be used as evidence in the lawsuit and that they would be using it. The suit was filed on behalf of more than 250 management-level employees at Wet Seal. The company could well have done without this new problem, given that it has had a very turbulent year when sales declined considerably and their chief executive had to go as also boardroom tangles necessitated replacing the chairman and three board directors. Wet Seal maintains that Ms. Cogdell resigned of her own free will and hence the need to take any unfavorable employment action against her did not arise. However, the commission said that the abrupt and hasty termination of many African-Americans at several stores in Pennsylvania had created an unreceptive, antagonistic atmosphere were continuing to work was not feasible and which forced Ms. Cogdell to quit. This in the view of the agency was equivalent to being fired. Ironically, the commission revealed, prior to being forced out, she was regarded as a valuable employee receiving high ratings in running the King of Prussia store, which was one of Wet Seal's better run stores, ranking eighth amongst it upwards of five hundreds stores in the country. Both her regional and district managers said that she possessed "great energy" and had the ability to manage other managers and others under her care to fulfill their responsibilities with diligence and punctually. Realizing the seriousness of the matter, the company released a statement saying that it was committed to a diverse workplace that provided equal opportunity without prejudice or bias and that the new leadership was committed to ensuring that its workplace was free from unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Moreover, it said that it had begun to voluntarily collaborate with the EEOC on a program designed to promote diversity. Ms. Cogdell was adamant to see that justice was done and said that it was intolerable that such a big company would so openly discriminate African-American employees. "But I wasn't the only victim of Wet Seal's discrimination, and I will not stop fighting for justice for all the victims," she said. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Faced 1,081 Cases at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC faced 1,081 unresolved asbestos-related cases at September 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Company states: "We have been named as a premises defendant in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non- employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. In the past, these cases typically involved multiple plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims against which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries occurred or what injuries each plaintiff claimed. Rarely do the complaints in these cases state the amount of damages being sought. These facts, which would be central to any estimate of probable loss, generally have been learned only through discovery. "Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to our ownership of the relevant premises, the prior owners generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to indemnify us against, asbestos exposure claims. This indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount limitations. Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, we tender it to the prior owner. The prior owner accepts responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases and payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In our eighteen-year experience with tendering these cases, we have not made any payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases. We believe that the prior owners have the intention and ability to continue to honor their indemnity obligations, although we cannot assure you that they will continue to do so or that we will not be liable for these cases if they do not. "We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As of September 30, 2012, we had an accrued liability of $10 million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of $10 million relating to our indemnity protection with respect to these cases. We cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability associated with these cases would not be material to our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such claims could be material. However, because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of September 30, 2012. "Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However, we may be entitled to insurance or other recovery in some of these cases. At September 30, 2012, the Company was a premises defendant to 41 unresolved cases that are not subject to indemnification. "We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that are not subject to indemnification of $82,000 and $442,000 during the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. As of September 30, 2012, we had an accrual of $225,000 relating to these cases and we expect insurance proceeds to offset this cost. We cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability associated with these cases would not be material to our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such claims could be material. However, because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of September 30, 2012." Huntsman Corporation is a manufacturer of differentiated organic chemical products and of inorganic chemical products. The Company operates its businesses through Huntsman International LLC (Huntsman International). The Company's products consists a range of chemicals and formulations, which it markets globally to a range of consumer and industrial customers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Accrues $473MM in Q3 PI Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- BNSF Railway Company has accrued $473 million in the three months ended September 30, 2012, for asbestos and other personal injury matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for BNSF Railway employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985. BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends. During the third quarters of 2012 and 2011, the Company analyzed recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by BNSF Railway to estimate its future asbestos liability were reasonable. In the third quarter of 2012, management recorded a decrease in expense of $15 million due primarily to favorable settlements. In the third quarter of 2011, management determined that the liability remained appropriate and no change was recorded. The Company plans to update its study again in the third quarter of 2013. Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary. Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed population (former and current employees hired prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF Railway projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95% of the future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years, respectively. BNSF Railway Company is the principal operating subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF). BNSF Railway transports a range of products and commodities, including the transportation of consumer products, coal, industrial products and agricultural products, derived from manufacturing, agricultural and natural resource industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 96,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation, as of September 30, 2012, had 96,000 pending claims filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold by us or our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non- friable. As of September 30, 2012, there were 96,000 pending claims against ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. In the nine-month period ended September 30, 2012, 11,000 pending claims were dismissed, approximately 10,000 of which were filed in Mississippi and were inactive. As of September 30, 2012, approximately 29,000 claims pending against the Company have been placed on inactive dockets in Mississippi. Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a large majority of claims pending against the Company have been placed on inactive dockets (including in Mississippi) because the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims are dismissed without any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate. The Company states: "We decreased our estimated undiscounted asbestos liability, including legal fees, by $75.8 million, reflecting a decrease in costs that the Company estimates will be incurred to resolve all pending claims, as well as unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. The decrease in our estimated liability is a result of several developments, including an expectation of lower defense costs relative to indemnities paid over the projection period and a reduction in the assumed rate of increase in future average settlement values. These favorable factors were offset in part by an increasing number of cases expected to be adjudicated, increased activity in several higher-cost jurisdictions, an increase in average settlement values and an increase in lung cancer activity. "Further, in the third quarter of 2012, the Company reduced its estimated asbestos-related assets by $78.7 million. The decrease in our asbestos-related assets is primarily a result of the decrease in the estimated liability and, to a lesser extent, reductions in expected recovery rates from certain insurers, offset in part by benefits from the recently executed Settlement Agreement. "During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, we received a distribution totaling $8.3 million from certain insolvent insurers. As a result, we reduced our asbestos related asset by $2.5 million and recognized $5.8 million in continuing operations as a reduction to the net asbestos charge for the second quarter. "In September 2012, we executed an agreement (the Settlement Agreement) with the entity (the counterparty) that acquired a business disposed by ITT in 1986. The Settlement Agreement accelerates the cost sharing provisions of a previous agreement with the counterparty. Prior to executing the Settlement Agreement, claims subject to the previous cost sharing agreement where ITT was not a named defendant were excluded from the count of pending claims; however, our recorded asbestos liability included an estimate of exposure to all claims subject to the cost sharing agreement. "Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the counterparty assumed full responsibility for all pending and future asbestos- related claims filed against the disposed business, whether they were served on ITT or the counterparty. However, if the disposed business and other ITT entities were both named in a claim, ITT continues to be responsible for defending the ITT portion(s) of the claim and thus those cases remain in the Company's count of pending claims and in our estimated asbestos liability. ITT also agreed that certain insurance rights will remain with the pending and future claims filed against the disposed business, benefiting the counterparty. "As a result of the Settlement Agreement, ITT's asbestos-related liabilities were reduced by $245.2 million, while the asbestos- related assets were reduced by $233.8 million. The reduction in the asbestos liability results from eliminating the liability for all asbestos claims filed and estimated to be filed over the next 10 years against the disposed business. In addition, under the Settlement Agreement, ITT will receive a $10.0 million cash payment from the counterparty for past and future costs which would otherwise have been paid by the surrendered insurance. Income from discontinued operations includes $5.6 million of the reduction in the net asbestos liability resulting from the Settlement Agreement with the remainder recorded in continuing operations. "We estimate that we will be able to recover 47% of the asbestos indemnity and defense costs for pending claims as well as unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years from our insurers. "Annual net cash outflows, net of tax benefits, are projected to average $10 million to $20 million over the next five years, as compared to an annual average of $10 million over the past three years, and increase to an average of approximately $35 million to $45 million, over the remainder of the projection period." ITT Corporation designs and manufactures engineered critical components and customized technology solutions for energy infrastructure, electronics, aerospace, and transportation industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ At September 30, 2012, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 15,047 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 93 claims from those previously reported. In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 41,117 of those claims were dismissed, 20 were tried to defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 610 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions. No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, manufacture, and sale of welding, cutting, and brazing products worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Had 15 Pending Suits at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Parker Drilling Company continues to defend 15 asbestos-related lawsuits at September 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Company states: "We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits in the ordinary course that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At September 30, 2012, there were approximately 15 of these lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the State of Mississippi. "The subsidiaries named in these asbestos-related lawsuits intend to defend themselves vigorously and, based on the information available to us at this time, we do not expect the outcome to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. No amounts were accrued at September 30, 2012." Parker Drilling Company (Parker) is a provider of contract drilling and drilling-related services operating in 11 countries. The Company has operated in over 50 foreign countries and the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faced 4,443 Claims at Oct. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ Albany International Corp. was defending 4,443 asbestos-related claims as of October 17, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Company states: "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics generally had a useful life of three to twelve months. "We were defending 4,443 claims as of October 17, 2012. "We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. "Exposure and disease information sufficient meaningfully to estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, and often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of October 17, 2012, we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 36,353 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $8,646,000. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The Company has over $125 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that we should be able to access. "Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,873 claims as of October 17, 2012. "We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the claims that have been asserted against it. As of October 17, 2012, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,727 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings. "We do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims. "In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. "Although we do not believe that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on our understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement amounts have been allocated to various policies, our settlement experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate any material liability relating to the resolution of the aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance limits. Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by juries." Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material processing company. The Company's business is a producer of custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to heavyweight containerboard. ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos- related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos. These components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance have been settled for various insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos- related claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions business that sells pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems and components and engineered products to customers in a variety of markets worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Currently Defends 29 Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. is currently defending 29 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Company states: "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently has 72 pending silica cases and 29 pending asbestos cases. To date, 1,394 silica cases and 10 asbestos cases have been dismissed. Four new asbestos cases were filed in the third quarter of 2012. Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. "The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to date. We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases since inception was approximately $0.2 million, the majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 29 pending asbestos cases, at least 25 allege liability based solely on products sold prior to the initial public offering, and for which the Company is therefore entitled to full indemnification pursuant to such agreements. Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits." Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products and supporting systems and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faced 2,155 Cases at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., at September 30, 2012, faced approximately 2,155 outstanding cases for which it may be responsible for any related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Company states: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof. At September 30, 2012, approximately 2,155 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through September 30, 2012, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $12.8 million. We acquired limited insurance coverage up to a fixed amount for defense and indemnity costs associated with certain asbestos-related claims. Under the policy currently in effect, we have submitted claims to our insurance carrier and have received $0.9 million in reimbursement for settlement claims and defense costs with a nominal amount remaining under the policy. "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study performed by an independent actuarial firm with expertise in assessing asbestos-related liabilities, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions. As is our accounting policy, we engage actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in the study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement values. "The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2012. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $27.1 million to $41.5 million for the period through 2058. The change from the prior year study was a $0.4 million decrease for the low end of the range and a $25 million decrease for the high end of the range. The decrease in the estimated undiscounted liability from the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects our actual experience over the past twelve months. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, recorded the low end of the range as the liability associated with future settlement payments through 2058 in our consolidated financial statements. Accordingly, an incremental $0.4 million provision in our discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual in September 2012 increasing the reserve to approximately $27.1 million. According to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated to range from $32.3 million to $57 million during the same period. "We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the future and other factors outside our control, we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial position. "We are responsible for certain future liabilities relating to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products. In accordance with our accounting policy, our most recent actuarial study as of August 31, 2012 estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $27.1 million to $41.5 million for the period through 2058. As a result, in September 2012 an incremental $0.4 million provision in our discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual increasing the reserve to approximately $27.1 million as of that date. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, recorded the low end of the range as the liability associated with future settlement payments through 2058 in our consolidated financial statements. In addition, according to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operation, are estimated to range from $32.3 million to $57 million during the same period. We will continue to perform an annual actuarial analysis during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Based on this analysis and all other available information, we will continue to reassess the recorded liability and, if deemed necessary, record an adjustment to the reserve, which will be reflected as a loss or gain from discontinued operation. The aforementioned estimated settlement payments and legal costs do not reflect any limited coverage that we may obtain pursuant to agreements with insurance carriers for certain asbestos-related claims." Standard Motor Products, Inc., is an independent manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with a focus on the original equipment service market. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Plans to Update Study in 3rd Quarter 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC, is party to a number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for BNSF employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF by 1985. BNSF assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends. During the third quarters of 2012 and 2011, the Company analyzed recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by BNSF to estimate its future asbestos liability were reasonable. In the third quarter of 2012, management recorded a decrease in expense of $15 million due primarily to favorable settlements. In the third quarter of 2011, management determined that the liability remained appropriate and no change was recorded. The Company plans to update its study again in the third quarter of 2013. Throughout the year, BNSF monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary. Based on BNSF's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed population (former and current employees hired prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or BNSF specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95% of the future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years, respectively. No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF), formerly Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation is a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the freight rail transportation business. BNSF Railway Company's (BNSF Railway) rail operations consist, which is the principal operating subsidiary, of the railroad systems in North America. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Still Defending Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd. and its subsidiaries continue to defend asbestos- related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Company states: "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965 and 1986. Each individual plaintiff was subsequently required to file a separate lawsuit, and the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints were then dismissed by the Circuit Courts. We have or may have an indirect interest in a total of 26 cases. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In each of these cases, the complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that contained asbestos. All of these cases are being governed for discovery and trial setting by a single Case Management Order entered by a Special Master appointed by the court to reside over all the cases, and of the 14 cases in which we are a named defendant, only one has been scheduled for trial and pre-trial discovery, which will take place in 2013. "The preliminary information available on these claims is not sufficient to determine if there is an identifiable period for alleged exposure to asbestos, whether any asbestos exposure in fact occurred, the vessels potentially involved in the claims, or the basis on which the plaintiffs would support claims that their injuries were related to exposure to asbestos. However, the initial evidence available would suggest that we would have significant defenses to liability and damages. None of our companies have manufactured or distributed drilling mud or additives for same, and the handling of such additives by one of our employees would be a relatively infrequent occurrence that likely would have involved a non-asbestos product. In 2011, the Special Master issued a ruling that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages, and this ruling has now been obtained in three of our 14 cases. To date, seven of the 769 cases have gone to trial against defendants who allegedly manufactured or distributed drilling mud additives. None of these cases have involved an individual Jones Act employer, and we have not been a defendant in any of these cases. Two of the cases resulted in defense verdicts, and one case ended with a hung jury. Four cases resulted in verdicts for the plaintiff. Because the jury awarded punitive damages, two of these cases resulted in a substantial verdict in favor of the plaintiff; however, both of these verdicts have since been vacated by the trial court. The first plaintiff verdict was vacated on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof. "While the court's decision is consistent with our general evaluation of the strength of these cases, it is currently being reviewed on appeal. The second plaintiff verdict was vacated because the presiding judge was removed from hearing any asbestos cases due to a conflict of interest, but when this case ultimately went to trial earlier this year, it resulted in a defense verdict. The two remaining plaintiff verdicts are under appeal by the defendants. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows. "One of our subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly as the beneficiary of a qualified settlement fund, funding from settlements with insurers, assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers, and funds received from the commutation of certain insurance policies. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of September 30, 2012, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 895 lawsuits, some of which include multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 1,977 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos- related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through September 30, 2012, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and expenses and settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding from settlements and claims payments from insurers, assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the final outcome of these matters, we do not believe that the current value of the claims where we have been identified will have a material impact on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 56,773 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. faced 56,773 pending asbestos-related claims as of September 30, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. As of September 30, 2012, the Company was a defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. Of the 56,773 pending claims as of September 30, 2012, approximately 19,300 claims were pending in New York, approximately 9,900 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 5,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 5,400 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009. The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one of which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on appeal. In an opinion dated January 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and instructed the trial court to enter a judgment of nonsuit in favor of the defendants. On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with compensatory damages of $2.45 million and additional damages of $11.9 million. The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated January 5, 2009. The case was concluded by settlement in the fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of the Company's appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles, California. The amount of the judgment entered was $0.68 million plus interest and costs. The Company pursued an appeal in this matter, and on August 2, 2012 the California Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the Company on the ground that this claim could not be distinguished factually from the Patrick O'Neil case decided in the Company's favor by the California Supreme Court. On February 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found that the Company was responsible for one-half of one percent (0.5%) of plaintiffs' damages of $16.93 million; however, based on California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in the amount of $1.65 million, plus costs. Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009, the court advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment was entered in favor of the Company. The trial court's ruling was affirmed on appeal by order dated August 25, 2011. The plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of California, which dismissed the appeal on February 29, 2012; the matter is now finally determined in the Company's favor. On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of $0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson. All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Nelson appeal is pending. The Company resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the settled claims for 2012. On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October 18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012 confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of damages to $8 million. Plaintiffs have requested the Court to enter a judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New York law. The Company has appealed. On March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a $123,000 verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and plaintiffs filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on plaintiffs' motion, the Court entered an order dismissing the claim against the Company, with prejudice, and without any payment. On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) of plaintiffs' damages of $6.9 million; however, based on California court rules regarding allocation of damages, plaintiffs have requested the Court to enter a judgment in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company. The Company plans to file post-trial motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict and an appeal if necessary. Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final payment amount is determined. The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 totaled $73.5 million and $82.9 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other required documentation are received by the Company, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 totaled a $60.1 million net payment and $59.2 million net payment, respectively. The Company's asbestos-related liability was $824 million as of September 30, 2012. Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in the United States and internationally. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Continues to Defend Claims --------------------------------------------------------- The Manitowoc Company, Inc., is involved in numerous lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims in which the company is one of numerous defendants. After taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of the company. No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Manitowoc Company, Inc., is a multi-industry, capital goods manufacturer. MTW operates in two markets: Cranes and Related Products (Crane) and Foodservice Equipment (Foodservice). Crane is a provider of engineered lifting equipment for the global construction industry, including lattice-boom cranes, tower cranes, mobile telescopic cranes, and boom trucks. Foodservice is a manufacturer of commercial foodservice equipment serving the ice, beverage, refrigeration, food-preparation, and cooking needs of restaurants, convenience stores, hotels, healthcare, and institutional applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Still Defends London Insurers Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit filed by certain London Insurers asserting they have no obligation to indemnify the company for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Company states: "On or about August 23, 2004, a declaratory judgment action entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., was filed by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company Limited (the "London Insurers"), in the 23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana, against MII, J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ("JRMI") and two insurer defendants, Travelers and INA, seeking a declaration that the London Insurers have no obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for certain bodily injury claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various state courts. Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a declaration of non-coverage in approximately 20 underlying matters. This proceeding was stayed by the Court on January 3, 2005. We do not believe an adverse judgment or material losses in this matter are probable, and, accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts relating to this contingency. Although there is a possibility of an adverse judgment, the amount or potential range of loss is not estimable at this time. The insurer- plaintiffs in this matter commenced this proceeding in a purported attempt to obtain a determination of insurance coverage obligations for occupational exposure and/or environmental matters for which we have given notice that we could potentially seek coverage. Because estimating losses would require, for every matter, known and unknown, on a case by case basis, anticipating what impact on coverage a judgment would have and a determination of an otherwise expected insured value, damages cannot be reasonably estimated." McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering, procurement, construction and installation company. The Company is focused on designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Defends Boudreaux & New Antoine Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend lawsuits filed by seamen alleging exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Company states: "On December 16, 2005, a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott, Inc., et al.("Antoine Suit"), was filed in the 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, by approximately 88 plaintiffs against approximately 215 defendants, including our subsidiaries formerly known as JRMI and Delta Hudson Engineering Corporation ("DHEC"), generally alleging injuries for exposure to asbestos, and unspecified chemicals, metals and noise while the plaintiffs were allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen. This case was dismissed by the Court on January 10, 2007, without prejudice to plaintiffs' rights to refile their claims. On January 29, 2007, 21 plaintiffs from the dismissed Antoine Suit filed a matter entitled Boudreaux, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al. (the "Boudreaux Suit"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, against JRMI and our subsidiary formerly known as McDermott Incorporated, and approximately 30 other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging exposure to welding fumes, solvents, dyes, industrial paints and noise. The Boudreaux Suit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on May 2, 2007, which entered an order in September 2007 staying the matter until further order of the Court due to the bankruptcy filing of one of the co-defendants." "Additionally, on January 29, 2007, another 43 plaintiffs from the dismissed Antoine Suit filed a matter entitled Antoine, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al. (the "New Antoine Suit"), in the 164th Judicial District Court for Harris County, Texas, against JRMI, our subsidiary formerly known as McDermott Incorporated and approximately 65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime products defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging personal injuries for exposure to asbestos and noise. On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order staying all activity and deadlines in the New Antoine Suit, other than service of process and answer/appearance dates, until further order of the Court. The New Antoine Suit plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay on February 20, 2009, which is pending before the Texas District Court. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount in both the Boudreaux Suit and New Antoine Suit cases and attorneys' fees in the New Antoine Suit. We cannot reasonably estimate the extent of a potential judgment against us, if any, and we intend to vigorously defend these suits." McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering, procurement, construction and installation company. The Company is focused on designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Faced 315 Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation, as of September 30, 2012, had 315 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012. The Company states: "A significant number of asbestos-related product liability claims have been brought against numerous United States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing products. We have been named, along with hundreds of other companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In virtually all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount merely represents a jurisdictional amount. However, occasionally specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual basis or support. As a result, even when a specific amount of damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such damages. "We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial users. We stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. "We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. As of September 30, 2012, there were 315 pending claims compared to 242 pending claims at December 31, 2011. The number of open claims at a particular time can fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or settled. Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages in personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in federal court. "This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted. The prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not only to the suit when filed but also during the trial -- in some jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged damages the plaintiff is claiming. Further, in those jurisdictions in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so. In those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a company's potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts claimed may bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff's injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff's litigation strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims against numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are not allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad claim is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged damages that are being specifically claimed against it and therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury, and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Of the 315 claims pending as of September 30, 2012, 74 claims do not specify the amount of damages sought, 239 claims cite jurisdictional amounts, and only two (2) claims (less than 1.0% of the total pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional requirements. Of these two (2) claims, one (1) claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages of $20 million each and one (1) claim alleges compensatory damages of $65 million and punitive damages of $60 million. These two (2) claims name between ten (10) and 21 defendants. However, we do not believe that this data allows for an accurate assessment of the relation that the amount of alleged damages claimed might bear to the ultimate disposition of these cases. "We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did not directly mine, mill or market asbestos. A significant increase in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases arose in Mississippi in 2002. This increase in the volume of claims in Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort reform legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries), which became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in a higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi by plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by the law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform. The number of asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in 2005 and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008 and increased again in 2009 and 2010. The number of lawsuits filed against us in 2011 was significantly higher than in 2010. However, it is still too early to be able to determine if this is a meaningful trend even though almost as many lawsuits were filed against us in the first three quarters of 2012 compared to all of 2011. Regardless, these new claims, and all previously filed claims, may take a significant period of time to resolve. "In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our asbestos-containing products. We continue to believe that a majority of the claimants in pending cases will not be able to demonstrate exposure or loss. This belief is based in large part on two factors: the limited number of asbestos-related products manufactured and sold by us and the fact that the asbestos was encapsulated in such products. In addition, even at sites where the presence of an alleged injured party can be verified during the same period those products were used, our liability cannot be presumed because even if an individual contracted an asbestos- related disease, not everyone who was employed at a site was exposed to the asbestos containing products that we manufactured. Based on these and other factors, we have and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in asbestos-related matters. "Cases involving us typically name 50-300 defendants, although some cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833 defendants. We have obtained dismissals of many of these claims. For the nine months ended September 30, 2012, we were able to have 70 claims dismissed and settled eleven (11) claims. For the year ended December 31, 2011, 120 claims were dismissed and eight (8) were settled. The majority of costs have been paid by our insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been settled. Such settlements totaled approximately $3.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012, compared to $8.1 million for the year ended 2011. Although these figures provide some insight into our experience with asbestos litigation, no guarantee can be made as to the dismissal and settlement rates that we will experience in the future. "Settlements are made without any admission of liability. Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors, including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as part of a group of claimants. To date, we have been successful in obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only a limited number. The majority of settled claims were settled for immaterial amounts, and the majority of such costs have been paid by our insurance carriers. In addition, to date, we have not been required to pay any punitive damage awards. "To date, our insurance carriers have paid for substantially all of the settlement and defense costs associated with our asbestos- related claims. The current cost sharing agreement between us and such insurance carriers is primarily designed to facilitate the ongoing administration and payment of such claims by the carriers until the applicable insurance coverage is exhausted. This four year agreement expires on January 25, 2015 and replaced an older agreement that had expired. "Recently the primary layer insurance policies providing coverage for the January 1, 1967 to June 30, 1969 period exhausted. The cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess carriers over exhausted primary layer carriers will become parties to the cost sharing agreement, replacing the coverage provided by the exhausted primary policies if the carrier providing such excess coverage is not already a party to the cost sharing agreement. The excess carrier providing coverage for the period is not already a party to the cost sharing agreement. Such excess carrier has been notified of the exhaustion and is reviewing the cost sharing agreement at this time. "In early 2012, the estimated liability and estimated insurance recovery, for the five-year period through 2016, was $27.9 million and $27.7 million. There was no change to these projections during the third quarter of 2012." Rogers Corporation manufactures plastics, polymers, busbars and electronic connectors for a wide array of industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors' Row Stops Rawlins Demolition Project ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kyle Roerink of The Star-Tribune reports that a stop-work order has left a pile of asbestos-laced rubble at the site of a former elementary school and delayed the demolition of another vacant elementary school, both in Rawlins. Meanwhile, accusations continue to fly. The increasingly impatient Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality doesn't care who says what about whom. Spokesman Keith Guille said the asbestos should have been properly removed by May. "That didn't happen," he said. The issue involves several interests beyond the state DEQ, including: -- Englewood, Colo., general contractor Monarch Site Services. -- Westminster, Colo., subcontractor American Demolition. -- Carbon County School District 1. -- The city of Rawlins. Monarch Site Services hired American Demolition to raze Pershing Elementary School. According to American Demolition attorney Michael Schlueter, nowhere in the contract was there a clause mandating the company remove asbestos. Prior to demolition, it was agreed that Monarch Site Services would remove all asbestos from the school before demolition, said American Demolition CEO Jake Olivas. He said Monarch Site Services never gave his company "actual notice" that asbestos remained in the area during demolition. Olivas said he received the proper permits to demolish the building, and it was "absolutely clear" that he wouldn't begin work until Monarch Site Services finished the asbestos removal. Monarch Site Services gave them the green light even though asbestos was still in the structure, he said. Monarch Site Services Vice President Chuck Bower said his company wasn't responsible for American Demolition's mistakes. The company failed to demolish the building per state regulations and specifications, he said. "It's in the hands of the attorneys and insurance companies," Bower said. Murray Wilkening, attorney for Monarch Site Services, declined to comment on the ongoing investigation. Schlueter, the American Demolition attorney, said this week that the company plans to file a lawsuit soon. Notices of Violation The state DEQ issued notices of violation to American Demolition and Monarch Site Services on Aug. 20. The notices claimed both companies were in violation of Wyoming air quality standards because asbestos flashing in the ceiling of Pershing Elementary wasn't properly removed before demolition. The notice states asbestos comingled with demolition debris and "all of the waste material would need to be considered regulated asbestos containing waste." Carbon County School District 1 hasn't paid American Demolition for razing Pershing Elementary. Olivas said the school district is hurting a small business, noting Carbon County School District 1 owes the company more than $231,000 for demolishing Pershing Elementary in April. Prior to demolition, both companies were aware that the building contained at least 3,000 square feet of flashing material containing 20% chrysotile asbestos, according to the DEQ notice. The asbestos was considered unregulated material until the improper removal and demolition of the building, DEQ said. Olivas said the job cost him $80,000 more than what was in the contract with Monarch Site Services. Part of the extra cost was the unexpected hauling of the asbestos material to different landfills and an unexpected removal of concrete. Nineteen additional truckloads of concrete had to be hauled away because of foundation walls that weren't in the speculative plans, Olivas said. The concrete went as deep as eight feet underground. The DEQ still considered it contaminated. There's no reason to call it contaminated, Schlueter, the attorney, said. All of the above-grade, potentially contaminated materials at the site had been removed and taken to a dump in Larimer County, Colo., before the foundation concrete was excavated, demolished and removed by American Demolition, he said. "That doesn't matter because it all becomes regulated asbestos material," Guille of the DEQ said. Representatives from the district were required to monitor the work site, said Dave Horner, business manager for Carbon County School District 1. When city officials from Rawlins became aware that the concrete was going to the landfill in town, they issued a stop-work order. Olivas said representatives from the school district approved the measure to dump the concrete at a local landfill. Horner disagreed. "We're looking at all parties, including the [school district]," Guille said. Olivas said American Demolition conducted tests to measure on-site contamination. "There was a nondetect on every piece of dirt," he said. The city of Rawlins requested copies of the test results. "They haven't provided them to us," said Amy Bach, director of community development for the city. Wyoming DEQ and the school district also requested the test results. Neither has seen them, officials said. American Demolition claims to have tested the concrete at the landfill in Rawlins as well. The results were clean, Olivas said. At an impasse Guille said the DEQ is working with American Demolition on reaching a settlement. "There is no bargaining because American Demolition did nothing wrong," Schlueter said. Mountain View Elementary in Rawlins was also slated to be demolished. But the stop-work order and the legal disputes have the project's completion at an impasse. There are broken windows, overgrown grass and animals living inside the building. A settlement between Monarch Site Services and American Demolition was close, but nothing came to pass, Schlueter and Olivas said. There was a revised scope-of-work order by the two companies for demolition at Mountain View to begin. American Demolition said it would do the job after Monarch Site Services removed all of the asbestos. There was a provision granting American Demolition be paid for the additional expenses from the unexpected asbestos and concrete removal. The city of Rawlins didn't accept it, Olivas said. Horner, with the school district, said Monarch Site Services has completed asbestos abatement at Mountain View. But the demolition won't start until its issues with American Demolition have been resolved, he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Issues Delay Bidding for Forks Cleanup Work ------------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Gottlieb of The Peninsula Daily News reports that bid openings were delayed for demolition of the once-iconic, now- charred remains of the International Order of Odd Fellows hall in Forks, pushing back site cleanup in the center of downtown to probably after the holiday season. Confusion over specifications regarding cleanup of asbestos at the site, a former community gathering place for art classes and plays, prompted the rejection of five bids that were opened Monday, Nov. 26, at City Hall, City Attorney/Planner Rod Fleck said. The contract award date was moved to Dec. 10 for a cleanup project that could take up to 45 days, Fleck said. "There was significant confusion with the contractors on an element regarding some old asbestos flooring tiles, laminate tiles," he said. "There was enough confusion that it highlighted a disparity in the bids. "In talking to experts on that, we said, 'OK, we need to get a clarification to let the folks know what they and the workers can and can't do.'" Cleanup could take a few weeks and be completed by New Year's Day, but that's unlikely, Fleck said. "In all likelihood, the earliest you could see us having cleanup is the end of the year, and with all the work being finished, probably by the middle part of January," he said. "With some of the costs involved, we want to make sure everyone has the right information and same information when they are bidding." The IOOF hall at 35 N. Forks Ave. and the adjacent, vacant former Dazzled by Twilight souvenir store at 61 N. Forks Ave., which also housed Olympic Pharmacy and the Fern Gallery at different times in its history, were destroyed in an early morning Oct. 29 fire during which no one was injured. The city-owned IOOF hall, which also housed the Rainforest Art Center on the second floor and the Latin American-themed La Tienda store on the first floor, is insured for $3.7 million. The value of the loss will be determined in about 90 to 120 days, Fleck said. "We could exceed $3.7 million," he said. "We have to work with the insurance company, too, on the cost of the cleanup as part of the overall claim." It remains unclear when the former Dazzled by Twilight building owned by Alaska Financial Co. of Anchorage will be leveled and the site prepared for a new occupant. The company has not given the city much information on its intentions, Fleck said. "We are going to have to have a conversation with them as to what their plans are," he added. Company Vice President Charles Preston would not comment Wednesday, Nov. 28 on when Alaska Financial might begin cleaning up the site. The company purchased the site in a foreclosure transaction in June, according to the Clallam County Assessor's Office. The operators of La Tienda continue to explore their options, Fleck said. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has determined the blaze was not criminal in origin and was caused by an electrical malfunction. The agency has yet to issue a written report on the blaze, Fleck said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Material Dumped in Blackpool Back Alley -------------------------------------------------------------- Shelagh Parkinson of The Blackpool Gazette (UK) reports that Blackpool residents on Nov. 26 were being warned to ensure they dispose of deadly asbestos safely. It follows on from an incident where the toxic material was dumped in a Blackpool back alley. People living in Bournemouth Road and Boscombe Road, South Shore, were shocked when asbestos sheeting was tipped into the alley behind their homes overnight on Monday, Nov. 26. Coun Fred Jackson, cabinet member with responsibility for waste, said: "First of all, fly tipping is illegal, regardless of the materials that are being dumped, and it is not a safe way of removing waste. "Asbestos is a hazardous material, and we have systems in place that can help people to remove it from their gardens in small amounts. To do this, they should come along to the Household Waste Recycling Centre and collect some special bags to collect it up and bring it back to Bristol Avenue to be disposed of safely. "People or companies who have larger quantities will be helped to find a specialist building contractor who are properly licensed by the Health and Safety Executive to take the hazardous waste away." Squires Gate ward councillor Douglas Green believes the closure of the St. Annes tip by Lancashire County Council last year has led to more fly tipping in South Shore. He said: "Ever since the tip in St. Annes was closed, I have been expecting there to be more fly tipping." It was estimated around 40% of the waste taken there came from Blackpool residents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison Public Library Closes For Abatement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Madison Eagle News reports that The Madison Public Library at 39 Keep St. is out of action for about two weeks due to an asbestos abatement project that began Monday, Nov. 26. The library closed at 5 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 25, and will remain closed through the abatement work period, estimated at about two weeks, to Monday, Dec. 10. All library programs, including "Wednesday Night at the Movies" and story times scheduled during that time frame are cancelled for the duration of the project. Public meetings scheduled for the library's Chase Room, however, will proceed during the remediation since the auditorium is adjacent to the library but a separate building. Madison Public Library cardholders are encouraged to use the reciprocal borrowing arrangements offered by all public libraries in Morris County, as well as the libraries in Summit, New Providence, Berkeley Heights, Bernards Township, Bernardsville and Long Hill Township. For updates on the duration of the library's closure, visit the library's Web site at http://www.madisonnjlibrary.org/or call the library at (973) 377-0722. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Clients Awarded $17 Million Verdict ----------------------------------------------------------------- The mesothelioma law firm of Baron and Budd announced a very significant asbestos damages verdict for the families of two mesothelioma victims. Garlock Sealing Technologies and Crane Co. valves were found responsible for exposing the men to asbestos from multiple products. Baron and Budd mesothelioma attorney Denyse Clancy -- dclancy@baronbudd.com -- represented both families during the trial. (Consolidated Asbestos Cases v. Crane Co., et al., Nos. 00199 and 00911 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls., Philadelphia Cty.) During the trial, Garlock argued that the plaintiffs could not feasibly prove that their gaskets, as the two men used them, were what contributed to their mesothelioma diagnosis. The evidence showed that Garlock gaskets contained between 75 and 90% asbestos. The jury saw a document -- which Garlock tried unsuccessfully to exclude -- in which Garlock admitted that its asbestos-containing gaskets could cause mesothelioma. Garlock reached a confidential settlement with the families shortly thereafter. Crane Co. reached a confidential settlement with the families just before the Pennsylvania jury returned its damages verdict. After the settlement, Garlock Sealing Technologies was the only remaining defendant when the jury returned its damages verdict. The jury determined that asbestos exposure from the company's products were the cause of both men's asbestos exposure. The jury awarded the two families' damages of a combined amount of $17 million. About Baron & Budd Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Baton Rouge, Austin and Beverly Hills, is a nationally recognized firm with more than three decades of experience representing people and communities harmed by corporate negligence. It has been recognized repeatedly by the National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" (2002-2006, 2008; Incisive Media). The firm resolved one of the first asbestos cases in the United States in the 1970s and continues to serve people diagnosed with mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer. On the Net: http://www.mesotheliomanews.com/ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Kills Ilkeston Mechanic ----------------------------------------------------- The Ilkeston Advertiser (UK) reports that a 52-year-old from Ilkeston, died from exposure to asbestos during his work as a mechanic, an inquest has heard. Eric Smith died at his Manor Road home on Sept. 24 a year after being diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer caused by asbestos. Wife Christine told Derby Coroner's Court on Friday, Nov. 30, that he was "fit and well" before his diagnosis but an operation in September 2011 removed most of his right lung. Mrs. Smith explained that during his work as a mechanic from the age of 16, often working very long hours, seven days a week, he would blow asbestos dust off brake and clutch pedals without any protective clothing or face mask. Deputy coroner Louise Pinder recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Announces 2013 Conference Speakers, Honorees ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization on Nov. 30 announced its keynote speakers and honorees for the upcoming Ninth Annual International Asbestos Awareness Conference, titled The Asbestos Crisis: New Trends in Prevention and Treatment. The conference will be held March 22-24, 2013, at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, VA. More than 30 renowned medical experts and asbestos victims from five countries will speak on the latest advancements in asbestos disease prevention, treatment for mesothelioma and other asbestos-caused diseases, and global ban asbestos advocacy. The conference will also include an Awards and Recognition Dinner and a Unity and Remembrance Brunch, as well as a private lunch and U.S. Capitol tour for victims and their families. "Only at the ADAO conference can I find experts in so many different asbestos fields sharing the latest information," said Dr. Richard Lemen, retired U.S. Assistant Surgeon General and ADAO Science Advisory Board Co-Chair. "I wouldn't miss it." Dr. Lemen has attended every ADAO conference since the inaugural event in 2005 and will chair the 2013 Medical Advancements session. The 2013 conference will offer a variety of interactive discussions centered around four key topics: Medical Advancements, Patients Advocacy, Prevention, and Global Ban Asbestos Action. In light of Hurricane Sandy, ADAO recently added a session to specifically address issues surrounding toxic exposure in the aftermath of natural disasters. "As a mesothelioma widow, I consider it unconscionable that millions of homes, schools, and workplaces still contain asbestos materials," stated Linda Reinstein, President/CEO and Co-Founder of ADAO. "Asbestos has been a known carcinogen for more than a century, yet consumer, environmental, and occupational asbestos exposure continues in the U.S. and around the world. Until Congress bans asbestos and researchers discover a cure for asbestos-related diseases, ADAO will continue our education, advocacy, and community building initiatives in an effort to prevent asbestos exposure." This year's keynote speakers include Dr. Aubrey Miller, Senior Medical Advisor and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Liaison to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Karen Banton, widow of the late activist Bernie Banton and CEO of the Bernie Banton Foundation. Each year, ADAO's conference recognizes outstanding individuals and organizations from around the world that serve as a voice for asbestos victims, raising awareness and advocating for a worldwide asbestos ban. ADAO is delighted to announce the 2013 ADAO Honorees. U.S. Representative Lois Capps will be presented with the Tribute of Hope Award for her steadfast commitment to public health and safety. Dr. Celeste Monforton will be recognized with the Dr. Irving Selikoff Lifetime Achievement Award in honor of her tireless dedication to increasing asbestos awareness to eliminate diseases. The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers will receive the Tribute of Unity Award for the organization's relentless efforts, both nationally and internationally, to protect workers' occupational safety and health. The Tribute of Inspiration Award will be presented to Karen Banton for her untiring efforts to protect workers' rights and seek justice for asbestos victims and their families. Rob Cagle, who lost his battle with mesothelioma in 2011, and Mavis Nye, a mesothelioma patient, will be honored with the Alan Reinstein Award for their commitment to education, advocacy and support. To register for ADAO's 2013 conference, visit the following link: http://bit.ly/Svdp0c 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. On the Net: http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Woes Balloon Pueblo City Hall Project Costs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kristen Griffin for the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance reports that at the outset of the project, estimates for renovating the historic City Hall of Pueblo City, Colorado hovered around the $4.5 million mark. The original budget of $4.5 million was proposed and approved in the summer of 2010, and now, more than two years into the project, the renovation costs are skyrocketing. Currently, the estimated total for the Pueblo City City Hall project is around $6.7 million, and city officials are concerned that since the renovations are nowhere near completion, that number is going to continue to climb. Phase 2 of the renovation project, already projected to be over budget, has yet to begin. One of the main culprits to the additional cost is the discovery of asbestos throughout the building. The expensive, yet necessary costs associated with removing the asbestos is causing the budget to bubble. Though safe removal of the toxin is paramount, regular renovation contractors are not licensed or trained to handle the asbestos. Asbestos abatement or asbestos removal is a highly specialized industry that not only adheres to local, state and federal government guidelines and regulations, improper removal of asbestos can be life-threatening. Classified as a carcinogen on the same level as cigarette smoke, asbestos is a naturally-occurring set of minerals that was widely used in manufacturing. As a whole, asbestos is not dangerous or life-threatening; only when the toxin is disturbed from a solid state does it pose a significant health concern. Just as it is the case with improper asbestos removal, unintentionally disturbing asbestos causes small particles to contaminate the air. These small asbestos particles may then embed in the soft, delicate tissue surrounding the lungs, heart or abdominal cavity, causing what is known as mesothelioma cancer. Asbestos exposure causes other significant health issues. Though the apparent and unforeseen costs associated with the discovery of asbestos in the historic City Hall has had a negative effect on the renovation budget, some City Council members are also attributing poor fiscal management as another reason for the ballooning budget. Since the project's beginning, Pueblo City has seen three city managers, and some members of the council are blaming this inconsistency as a major reason for the lack of fiscal accountability. The City Hall project is currently scheduled to be completed in May 2013. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron & Budd Client Awarded $9 Million Verdict --------------------------------------------------------------- The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron and Budd announced a $9 million verdict on Dec. 1 for a Dow Chemical worker and his family. The mesothelioma lawsuit was on behalf of Robert Henderson, now deceased, his wife Tanya Henderson and daughters Adrienna and Za'Quoia. (Henderson v. Dow Chemical Co., Dallas County District Court, No. 10-07003). Baron & Budd mesothelioma lawyers John Langdoc -- jlangdoc@baronbudd.com -- and Alana Kalantzakis -- akalantzakis@baronbudd.com -- represented the Dallas family at trial. Langdoc and Kalantzakis successfully established that Henderson's exposure to asbestos at Dow Chemical facility was what caused his mesothelioma. "We verified that Mr. Henderson was one of many workers who was exposed to asbestos at Dow Chemical and later came down with an asbestos cancer," said John Langdoc. "Dow knew workers could get cancer." Henderson spent the majority of his career working around products that contained asbestos. At Dow Chemical, he worked as a contract employee and was exposed as a bystander to asbestos-containing Dow insulators. As one of the largest chemical manufacturing plants in the world, Dow Chemical employs thousands of workers who have possibly been exposed to asbestos directly and as bystanders. For almost 35 years, the mesothelioma lawyers at Baron and Budd have been defending the rights of mesothelioma sufferers and their families. The law firm was one of the first to successfully handle a mesothelioma lawsuit and remains committed to standing up to the asbestos companies for knowingly exposing people to asbestos products. With an extensive record of success, Baron & Budd has built the reputation and experience to handle the most complex of cases. About Baron & Budd, P.C. The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. -- http://baronandbudd.com-- has a more than 30-year history of "Protecting What's Right" for asbestos sufferers and their families. As one of the first law firms to successfully litigate an asbestos lawsuit, Baron & Budd continues to actively represent veterans, industry workers and others who are suffering as a result of exposure to asbestos. Baron & Budd achieved the largest mesothelioma verdict ever in the state of Texas, a $55 million verdict for an asbestos sufferer and his family in El Paso, Texas. Visit Baron & Budd's dedicated mesothelioma Web site Mesothelioma News at http://www.mesotheliomanews.com/or call 1.866.855.1229 for information on medical treatments, mesothelioma cancer doctors and treatment centers, high risk jobs, veterans issues and financial assistance for asbestos cancer care. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Councils to Get Guidelines for DIY Buffs ------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that NSW councils will be given guidelines on how they can minimize asbestos risks for home renovators as part of a campaign to protect DIY enthusiasts. Campaigners fear that many home renovators are at risk of exposure to asbestos, which is found in most homes built before the mid- 1980s and can cause deadly cancers if the fibers become airborne and are inhaled. To raise awareness of the issue the state government has compiled a Model Asbestos Policy for local councils, which contains best practice for dealing with the deadly substance. Launching the policy in Sydney on Monday, NSW Minister for Local Government Don Page said renovators should leave asbestos disposal to the experts. "Unless you know what you're doing, you're better off not doing it," Mr. Page told reporters. "You're better off getting someone in who knows how to manage asbestos." The policy highlights the role that councils should play in terms of waste disposal, emergency response and public education. Mr. Page said there had already been at least 4700 deaths from mesothelioma in Australia since records began in the early 1980s, with more than 25,000 more expected to die from it over the next 40 years. "Currently, each year 500 men and 100 women develop mesothelioma in Australia, and this is expected to rise to 900 new cases a year by 2020," he said. Professor Nico van Zandwijk, who helped draw up the policy, said the scale of the problem was huge in Australia, where there was enough asbestos waste to fill 300,000 jumbo jets. "That is the legacy of a lot of asbestos use in the built environment," he said. As part of the campaign, launched at the start of Asbestos Awareness Week, a portable replica house will tour the country to demonstrate where asbestos can be found in the home. The Asbestos Diseases Research Institute will stage a candle-light vigil for victims of asbestos on Monday night (Nov. 26) at the Sydney Opera House, which will have its sails illuminated blue. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jeffrey Mine Is Now Stand-In for Planet Mars ------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that Canada's last asbestos mine, now winding down its operations, may have a new celestial calling -- as a stand-in for planet Mars. Quebec's Jeffrey Mine hosted nearly two-dozen scientists recently for a simulated Mars mission initiated by Canada's space agency. The scientists from four universities made a pair of trips to the Asbestos region, this year and last year, accompanied by a micro- rover. "There are definitely areas [on Mars] that are much more like what we have at Jeffrey Mine," said Ed Cloutis, a University of Winnipeg professor who participated in the project. The new vocation won't exactly replace the once-mighty asbestos industry as an economic lifeblood for the region. The mine had been counting on a $58 million government loan to renovate and keep operating. The simulated Mars mission, on the whole, cost $800,000 -- and some local officials, including an alderman and the town's director general, didn't even appear to be aware of the project when contacted by The Canadian Press. Searching For "Key Indicators" Of Life The goal of the project was to simulate as closely as possible a Mars rover mission to detect the presence of, and determine the source of, methane on Mars. Cloutis, an expert in planetary geology, said the scientific missions to the Asbestos region could be Canada's ticket to future trips to the red planet. "One way to search for life on Mars [is] you look at the gases that might be produced or used as a food source by bacteria on Mars," Cloutis said in an interview. Methane gas, which can be found at the mine on the edge of the town of Asbestos, is one of two key indicators of life. The other is water. Jeffrey, with a diameter of over two kilometers and 350 meters deep, was one of the largest open-pit mines in the world. The mine hosts serpentinite, a rock which is prone to bacteria -- the ultimate life form. Methane gas is a byproduct of bacteria. Methane has already been detected in the Martian atmosphere and scientists are hoping NASA's Curiosity rover will find it on the planet. The Asbestos project was spearheaded by MPB Communications Inc., a Montreal-area firm and the prime contractor, which also developed a micro-rover named Kapvik. The waist-high rover, whose robotic arm was developed by engineers at Ryerson University, was put to work during the research. The mission employed a team of about 20 people at Jeffrey Mine in June 2011 and again at nearby Norbestos, in June 2012, while the Canadian Space Agency in Longueuil, Que., acted as mission control. Cloutis was joined on the project by other scientific investigators from McGill University, Carleton University and the University of Toronto. Cancelled Loan Ensured Asbestos Mine Closure Their initial site is looking even more desolate and Mars-like than usual, these days. The new Parti Quebecois provincial government has cancelled a $58 million loan, which would have kept the controversial industry alive. Cancelling that loan, signed in July by the former Liberal government, was a PQ election promise. Asbestos town councillor Serge Boislard says that, since the cancellation, the number of personnel at the mine has dropped down to about 20 workers who are only doing basic maintenance and providing security. He says the last of the mine's managers and engineers were laid off several weeks ago. He recalls the days when that mine employed about 2,000 people -- back in the industry's heyday, before the international pressure mounted to ban asbestos because of its links to cancer. "It would take a miracle to reopen the mine in the coming years," he said. Like some other local officials, Boislard hadn't heard of the Mars project. The effort got rolling when the Canadian Space Agency contracted MPB's space division to develop the so-called "analogue" mission. Wes Jamroz, the director of MPB Communications, says the Jeffrey Mine has a bright future as a Mars substitute. "This mine is a very real environment to practice future deployment on Mars because you have the same rocks (and) you have the same environment," he said in an interview. "During these two deployments we were able to find out that there were natural traces of methane as well, so you have all the factors that you need." More promising than curiosity probe? Jamroz suggests the Quebec project might even, in some ways, be on a more promising track than NASA's famous Curiosity rover. He says the huge NASA lab is using laser-based instruments to "sniff" for methane on rocks and cracks, which mixes very quickly with the atmosphere. "The chances of sniffing things, and that you are going to find an opening, are very low -- but this is my opinion," Jamroz said. He says the tests carried out in Quebec indicate it would be much more effective to look for certain kinds of rocks and cracks on the Martian surface. "You have a set of cameras that can recognize certain geological features and you go to the spot and then you measure methane," he said. Jamroz also said using his small micro-rover for a future Mars mission would be far less expensive than Curiosity, which is the size of a small SUV. "Remember, Curiosity weighs one ton and the rover we are playing with is between 30 and 40 kilos," he said. "We estimate that this kind of mission, with international co-operation from partners like the Brits and Americans, you can do it with $100 million instead of several billion." NASA says Curiosity, which weighs 900 kilograms, cost $2.5 billion. Cloutis told a recent Canadian space summit in London, Ont., that his group is lobbying for additional rover trials at Asbestos. "Our rationale is that the moon and Mars will continue to be targets of interest for the deployment of rovers," he said. "In terms of waving the Canadian flag, if we have all this great experience, we'll be better positioned to participate in some of these [future] international missions." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocacy Group Slams MAV's Rejection of AAMR Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kristian Silva of The Northern Weekly reports that Victoria's local government peak body has come under fire for refusing to support council-operated residential asbestos registers. On Nov. 12, the Municipal Association of Victoria issued a statement, rejecting a recommendation by the Australian Asbestos Management Review (AAMR) that councils take a lead role in monitoring asbestos in homes. The MAV said the recommendation was not "appropriate or efficient" for councils. The MAV was responding to an August report in which the federal government-funded Australian Asbestos Management Review called on councils to identify asbestos in all houses built before 1987 that were up for sale or lease. It also recommended that councils carry out asbestos inspections before renovations and maintain their own asbestos databases, which could be used by tradesmen or prospective purchasers or leasees. The review's recommendations would eventually involve thousands of homes built with asbestos products if adopted. Bayside council was unable to provide figures on the number of dwellings built pre-1987 before deadline, but Census figures show 36,806 homes in the city in 2006. MAV president Bill McArthur said asbestos checks should be done by state governments to avoid council rate rises. "They fail to consider cost impacts, constraints already affecting councils and how the proposals would be funded," he said. Bayside council's city strategy director, Shiran Wickramasinghe, said councils didn't have powers to enforce asbestos checks under current laws. "The majority of building permits are issued by private building surveyors. Additionally if an internal alteration is non structural, there isn't a requirement for a building permit," he said. But advocacy group Asbestoswise described the MAV stance as "a massive cop-out." "The database would be useful to . . . anyone who's going to cause dust from internal movement or renovation," chief executive officer Wayne Bruton said. Mr. Bruton said councils could conduct checks when a vendor applied for a land information certificate, required when putting a property on the market. Experts believe 25,000 Australians will die from mesothelioma, often caused by asbestos, during the next four decades. A recent Safe Work Australia study showed a sharp rise in the death rate, from just over 400 deaths in 1997 to 642 in 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Researchers Receive AU$291,815 Fund --------------------------------------------------------------- The APN Newsdesk reports that researchers from the Queensland Mesothelioma Project (QMP), Southern Cross University (SCU) and the University of Queensland (UQ) were among eight recipients of money to help people suffering from asbestos-related illnesses. The money was awarded through the Asbestos Innovation Fund, which was launched by the Federal Government in 2010. Dr. Kimberly Stannard from the Queensland Mesothelioma Project will receive AU$150,000 to test a new treatment regime that combines chemotherapy with tumor specific immune therapy. Associate Professor Rick van der Zwan from Southern Cross University will receive AU$96,015 to identify and better understand the negative changes in the social, psychological and economic activities of individuals and families living with asbestos-related illnesses. Associate Professor Judith Bauer from the University of Queensland will receive AU$45,800 to determine the nutritional status, body composition and dietary intake and quality of life of patients with mesothelioma. The aim of her research is to advance understanding and knowledge about the nutritional care of mesothelioma patients. Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten, who announced the recipients of the funding on Tuesday, Nov. 27, said while the costs of asbestos-related illness were high, the price of inaction was higher. "The reality is that asbestos-related deaths are not expected to peak until 2020, and that tragically, we are expecting another 30- 40,000 people to be diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases in the next 20 years," Mr. Shorten said. "According to the International Labour Organisation, someone in the world dies from an asbestos-related disease every five minutes. In Australia, it is expected that more Australians will die from diseases related to asbestos than were killed in the First World War." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Celebrates Asbestos Awareness Week ------------------------------------------------------------- Sky News (Australia) says half a world away from her native Canada, Alison Preece has found a place to celebrate the life of her husband, who died of mesothelioma. As the sun set over Circular Quay on Monday night (Nov. 26), Ms. Preece joined about 100 other people in a candlelight tribute to those who died because of asbestos-related disease, part of Asbestos Awareness Week celebrations. The sails of the Opera House were illuminated blue in their honor. Ms. Preece, who was on holidays in Sydney, said she was exploring Circular Quay on Sunday, Nov. 25, when she stumbled across the Asbestos Diseases Foundation's educational trailer. Having lost her husband Elmer in September last year, Ms. Preece said attending the vigil was the perfect way to spend her last night in Australia. "Elmer loved to travel, so after he passed I resolved to keep travelling -- it's what he would have wanted," Ms. Preece said. "He'd been involved with asbestos as a result of his work as an engineer. "They would have small explosions in the boiler room, what the workers called fairy dust." "Of course they had no protection and it's presumed that's when the fibers got into his lungs." The chairman of the Asbestos Education Committee, Peter Munphy, said it was vital to remember asbestos was "still all around" in homes, schools and workplaces. Asbestos-related disease caused 200 deaths a year in NSW and about 600 nationally, Mr. Munphy said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition of Decrepit Building in Miss. Starts ---------------------------------------------------------------- NorthEscambia.com reports work was scheduled to begin Nov. 26, to demolish a large, dilapidated asbestos-containing building in Century, Miss. The town council had voted to demolish the building at 7601 Mayo Street back in 2011, but asbestos concerns put those plans on hold. A study found asbestos in the older 6,400 square foot two story portion of the building, as well as in the newer single story portion of the structure, according to Century Mayor Freddie McCall. The town found a grant from the Regional Planning Council to abate the asbestos and demolish the structure. Because the town is not eligible to receive the grant, the building was deeded to the Century Chamber of Commerce, which is eligible for the assistance. Once the building is demolished, the chamber will have up to 10 years to lure development to the property or it will revert back to the town. The town will approve or deny any lease or purchase of the property. The white, mostly brick building across from the old hospital housed doctors' offices and even a pharmacy and soda fountain years ago. It has been abandoned for several years and is in an obvious state of disrepair with roof and structural problems. The building demolition and asbestos abatement are scheduled to be complete by Dec. 12. Residents and visitors to the area are asked to use caution and abide by all safety notifications and barriers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts Project at St. Mary's Park in Penrith ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stacy Thomas of The Mt. Druitt Standard (Australia) reports that Penrith Council has uncovered fibrous material at a St. Mary's park which could be asbestos. During excavation works to build a children's bike path at Bennett Park, the council's contractors uncovered the material on the site. Work has stopped and the area secured until it is identified. Mayor Mark Davies said a range of precautionary measures, including the complete fencing of the site and covering all excavated areas. "The council has called in the experts and a detailed site assessment is being completed," he said. "The assessment will both identify the material and . . . will guide council in the best management of the site until all works are completed and there is no risk to the community." The project when completed, will deliver 250 meters of two-meter wide children's bike path, complete with line marking. The track builds on the range of play facilities already available at the park. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Forms Model Asbestos Policy for Councils ------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos can raise health concerns for one, if accidentally inhaled. It is, therefore, that the government of New South Wales has formed a Model Asbestos Policy meant for local councils, Neeraj Shahane of TopNews Network reports. It reportedly contains the practice that can best deal with the fatal compound. It is being said that the policy would raise awareness about the issue and would save lives of many home renovators. The state councils would be taught on how to cut the risks imposed by asbestos on home renovators. The aim is also to protect DIY enthusiasts, the report says. Don Page, NSW Minister for Local Government, said while launching the campaign that home renovators should, from now on, leave the disposal of asbestos to experts. The substance is mostly found in the homes that were built in the mid-1980s or before. It has been warned that the same, if its fibers turn airborne, can lead to various potentially fatal cancers. Therefore, the policy is also focused on making councils learn how to respond in emergency and educate public over the same. "Looking at exposure to asbestos we're looking at the people who are most likely to have the potential to be exposed to asbestos now", said WorkCover Operations Director Peter Dunphy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forster Mill Demolition Plan to Launch Anytime --------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Hongoltz-Hetling of MaineToday Media reports that Wilton Recycling will pay a $7,500 penalty to the state for the company's role in an asbestos hazard at the former Forster Mill, according to the Department of Environmental Protection. The company's owner, Adam Mack, 38, said active demolition of the now-safe Depot Street site could begin at any time, whether or not he is incarcerated for unrelated charges. Mack, who is a former Republican state representative for Standish, pleaded guilty in U.S District Court in Portland in October to misusing federal money. He has not yet been sentenced, but could spend up to five years in prison for the crime. "The other stuff is still ongoing and whether I'm available to directly coordinate or not, I have other responsible people in place who will continue with the Wilton project," Mack said. In Wilton, the lengthy enforcement process against Mack ends with the consent agreement he entered into with the department. "The conclusion of this case is a win-win that proves DEP's enforcement process works," said Samantha Depoy-Warren, department spokeswoman, after announcing the agreement on Tuesday, Nov. 27. "The responsible party was held accountable in a firm but fair way and more importantly, the eventual removal of asbestos from this site now allows for the redevelopment of this community cornerstone." Demolition of the mill was halted in July 2011, when workers alerted federal officials to unsafe working conditions caused by the improper removal of insulation containing asbestos from pipes. According to the consent agreement, no one inspected the site for the presence of asbestos before the demolition, a violation of department rules. While cleaning up the remaining mess, an asbestos removal expert called it the worst asbestos site he's seen in Maine in 30 years. The asbestos was removed safely in September, after more than a year of negotiation between the department and Mack. Depoy-Warren said the resolution is an achievement for the department, the abatement contractor, the town of Wilton and to Mack, "for stepping up to make the site right, a positive action that's reflected in the reduced monetary penalty." Under the consent agreement, which was signed by Mack in October, the company makes no admissions as to whether it violated the law. However, any future environmental violations would be considered repeat violations. Mack said that he considered the agreement to be fair and that plans to demolish the front section of the building are in motion. "If all goes well, the first part of the building will come down this winter," he said. "It could come down at any time." He said that the main part of the building will likely be demolished in the spring. While Mack's company owns the mill property, the botched demolition work was done by Downeast Construction, owned by Ryan Byther, a Scarborough contractor who was sentenced to six months in jail in May for an unrelated incident. Depoy-Warren said the case against Byther remains open. Before his employees reported the violations, Byther removed and sold piping worth an estimated $250,000 from the site. He was fined $154,200 earlier this year by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Mack said Byther will not be involved in the remainder of the demolition work. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WA Labor Senator Launches Attack on CSR Solicitor ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michelle Grattan for WA Today (Australia) reports the government stepped up its attack on deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop on Tuesday night (Nov. 27) when a Western Australian Labor senator accused her of conducting asbestos litigation in "an immoral and inhumane manner." Glenn Sterle told the Senate that Ms. Bishop, who was a solicitor acting for CSR, should feel ashamed of the harm she had caused to the people of Western Australia. He said she had demonstrated a total lack of judgment and failed to exercise the requisite degree of professional independence. She had displayed "highly questionable values", and failed to live up to the ethical standards expected of her as a lawyer, by seeking to defeat the fair and efficient administration of justice. Ms. Bishop also had "serious questons to answer", about the suspicious disappearance of documents that may have been of assistance to the victims of Wittenoom. Senator Sterle accused Ms. Bishop of seeking to use procedural tactics to delay judgment, and exploiting technicalities to reduce compensation payable. "In subsequent years, CSR's solicitor has pleaded that she was simply acting on her client's instructions and the advice of barristers when she sought to delay justice to dying men. "But the solicitor, and she alone, is responsible for her conduct as a solicitor -- she can't shift the blame to her clients or advising counsel." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welsh Minister Doubts Local Anti-Fibro Efforts --------------------------------------------------------------- David Deans of The South Wales Argus reports that the Welsh education minister has raised questions over whether local councils are dealing with asbestos properly in the wake of the Cwmcarn High School crisis. Leighton Andrews said in a written statement to AMs that responses to a call to all local authorities to confirm they were undertaking their duties under law over asbestos, had been "varied." "As a consequence, and based upon, the responses received I do not feel sufficiently assured at this stage that local authorities are discharging their statutory duties to manage asbestos and have sufficient plans in place," he wrote. Mr. Andrews said he will now ask councils that they ensure head teachers and governing bodies know and understand their obligations and duties, have reviewed the relevant insurance and are following provided guidance. He added he has asked his own officials to work with others to address the matter urgently so "the management of asbestos and the safety of learners and teachers isn't compromised." The statement also said it was not practical to remove asbestos from every school in Wales "on a blanket basis." "The HSE has always maintained that the best approach for asbestos in sound condition and not likely to be damaged is to leave it well alone, protect it and manage it to prevent damage and exposure to asbestos," Mr. Andrews wrote. Mr. Andrews spoke ahead of a debate on the issue due to take place in the Assembly, called by Monmouth AM Nick Ramsay. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal of Tenterfield Toxic Mulch to Complete --------------------------------------------------------------- The Tenterfield Star reports that the Tenterfield Shire Council (New South Wales, Australia) is promoting National Asbestos Awareness Week this week as the last asbestos-affected mulch is removed from the shire. Mayor Peter Petty said council and the community had faced significant issues in relation to asbestos since the fire at the Sunnyside Loop Waste Transfer Station in January and the discovery of low levels of asbestos in mulch earlier this year. Cr Petty said the issues highlighted the dangers posed by asbestos and the need for everyone to take the necessary precautions. He said asbestos needed to be disposed of in a responsible manner others must not be placed in harm's way due to reckless illegal dumping of asbestos. Cr Petty said he was pleased to see council's commitment to Asbestos Awareness Week which ran from Nov. 26 t0 30 and is aimed at raising the community's knowledge of the dangers of asbestos. Council employed East Coast Asbestos Removal (ECA) to remove mulch from about 17 properties in the shire that were found to have used mulch from the transfer station that was contaminated with asbestos. The program is close to completion. Tenterfield Shire Council has partnered with the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute (ADRI) as part of a week-long national campaign created to be the first line of defense against the "third wave" of asbestos-related diseases caused by inhaling asbestos fibers while renovating or maintaining homes. "Don't play Renovation Roulette!" is the message the Tenterfield Shire Council, the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute and the Asbestos Education Committee are sending to all Australians during the awareness week. Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos-related diseases in the world most likely because Australia has also been ranked among the top consumers of asbestos cement products per capita. With almost every home built or renovated before the mid-1980s likely to contain asbestos in one form or another; the third wave of people affected by mesothelioma, one of the asbestos-related diseases, has recently become evident. "Before commencing any home maintenance or renovation work, homeowners and renovators, particularly young couples and first home buyers excited about renovating their homes, need to learn about where they might find asbestos in the home and how best to manage it so they can protect themselves and their families from asbestos fibres," a release from council said. "We want Australians to stop being complacent about how they work with asbestos. We want them to start thinking smart and safe by visiting http://www.asbestosawareness.com.au/for information on managing asbestos in and around the home because it's not worth the risk." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duluth Will Seek Funds for Armory Remediation -------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Stahl of The Duluth News Tribune reports the June flood may turn out to be a financial boon for the Duluth Armory, but also will cause the building to be inspected by state authorities for potential environmental hazards. The city of Duluth will seek several hundred thousand dollars to repair damage from the flood related to the Armory, including removing asbestos disturbed by the floodwater, according to the city and the Armory Arts and Music Center, which owns the building. Without that money, the Armory would not have been able to pay for the abatement and cleanup. "We always assumed we'd remove at least the asbestos," said Mark Poirier, the project development consultant for the Armory Arts and Music Center. "It's not an occupied space, but there is mechanical equipment down there, and people need access to monitor the culvert." Rushing water from Chester Creek, which runs underneath the Armory, blew up from a culvert through the basement of the building, filling the area with debris, sediment and concrete from the culvert, damaging electrical work and disturbing asbestos, Poirier said. The cost to repair the culvert and clean up the Armory basement could total from $400,000 to $800,000, said Cari Pedersen, the city of Duluth's chief engineer of transportation. The city is paying for the armory work because the damage was caused by the city-owned culvert, Pederson and Poirier said. The money for the repairs and abatements will come from federal highway money and flood bonding money from the state of Minnesota, Peterson said. Beyond the cleanup, the floods may have caused an environmental hazard. The gushing water from the floods blew what Poirier described as a "significant sized hole" in the Armory basement that now looks directly into Chester Creek below. That hole could allow potentially hazardous materials to get into the creek, which flows into Lake Superior. Environmental assessment reports conducted in 2000 and 2001 have found not only high amounts of asbestos in the basement, but also lead in the soil from when that part of the building was used as a shooting range. Those hazards have never been abated. Heidi Kroening, the compliance and enforcement supervisor for the MPCA, said the agency wasn't aware of the potential environmental hazards at the Armory before being contacted by the News Tribune. As a result, she said the agency will inspect the site. She said there are concerns about both asbestos and lead getting into Chester Creek. The Armory was first condemned for demolition in 2000, but an effort was made by city officials to study what it would cost to repair and re-use the building. A Jan. 31, 2001 study found several thousand square feet of asbestos throughout the building, while also finding visible pieces of lead from soil samples in the basement of the building and the potential for lead dust. An April 22, 2002 report on the potential re-use of the Armory conducted by the city of Duluth Planning Department estimated the cost to abate the asbestos throughout the building at $235,000, and the cost to abate the lead in the basement at $1.3 million. The report noted that if the building was re-used then all the lead in the basement might not need to be removed. It could be possible, the report noted, to remove only the top few inches of soil; a cost estimate for that work was not provided. There also could be costs to clean up sewage that made it into the building after the flood. Areas of the basement tested positive for coliform and e-coli bacteria, which Poirier said was caused by sewage mixing with storm water and getting into the building from the flood. He said volunteers cleaned out and abated the sewage and other damage on the first floor of the building. "We're done with the portions we can do," he said. The city's Building Appeals Board granted a six-month stay for demolition of the building during a meeting in August, after Poirier told the board before the flood the AAMC was making progress on making the building fit for commercial use. He told the board a six-month extension would allow the AAMC time to get the building "back to pre-flood condition" but now says he expects that to take longer, possibly into the spring, due to the work required. Even if the Armory is able to get the building back to pre-flood conditions, Poirier estimates it will be another year and a half before it's able to open for commercial use. He says funding for the work needed for that to happen is contingent on the Armory signing a tenant. Once that happens, Poirier said money from that lease would go toward remodeling the building and getting it up to code. Ultimately, Poirier said the Armory will be used as a commercial space and a center for the arts, education and music. The front portion facing Lake Superior would be for commercial space while the remainder would be used by nonprofits dedicated to the arts, Poirier said. Because the building is under a condemnation order, only city personnel, owners of the building and professional building contractors are allowed inside. That is making it difficult to find a tenant, Poirier said. He said he's hoping to get permission from the city sometime this month to allow potential tenants to tour the building. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitch Eyes Fibro Reserve Deficit for US Insurers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings estimates industry asbestos reserves to be deficient by $2 billion to $8 billion at year-end 2011. Asbestos reserves make up approximately 4% of total property/casualty industry reserves with approximately 50% of reserves concentrated in five insurers. In a new report, Fitch examines a range of loss scenarios and future payments for asbestos losses up to an ultimate industry loss of $85 billion. Based on recent development experience and its latest analysis of loss payment scenarios, Fitch's target industry survival ratio is 11x-14x. The reported industry survival ratio for asbestos liabilities increased modestly to 10.3x in 2011 from 10.1x in 2010 and 9.9x in 2009, indicating that incurred losses have expanded at a faster rate than paid losses in recent years. Fitch's analysis reveals that the (re)insurance industry remains strongly capitalized with the capacity to absorb future asbestos claims without risk of material capital depletion. While Fitch does not anticipate broad rating actions related to asbestos, the ratings of individual companies could be adversely affected by the severity of reserve deficiencies relative to capital. ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Starts Online Permit and Notification Service ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Laurel Outlook reports The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has launched a new Asbestos Project Permit and Demolition Notification online service. Now asbestos project permits and demolition notifications can be submitted through the DEQ Web site and mobile devices including smartphones and other handheld or tablet devices. The service is located at http://www.deq.mt.gov/Asbestos Asbestos Project Permits and Demolition Notifications are required prior to the demolition or renovation of commercial buildings to protect both workers and the public from the release of potentially hazardous asbestos containing materials. Other benefits of the online service include application error reduction and mobile access so that contractors can submit permit applications and notifications right from the work site. Contractors access the online permit by logging into the Asbestos Project Permit Application Service using a secure login and password at https://app.mt.gov/AsbestosPermits Once logged in, the contractor will select the type of application -- project permit, demolition notification, or a combination of the two. Contractors then are guided through the application process with easy-to-use navigation and a chance to review, edit and save the application before submitting it. Contractors who use the online service will be able to pay online via electronic check or credit card, including Visa, MasterCard, and Discover. Throughout the process, the automated system will update contractors via e-mail of their application process, submission and acceptance. Approved permits will be e-mailed to the contractor. For more information about the service and information about asbestos regulations in Montana, please visit the DEQ Web site at http://www.deq.mt.govor call the DEQ Waste and Underground Tank Management Program at 406-444-5300. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Ketchikan Hospital Demolition Begins January ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press (Alaska) reports that Ketchikan's former hospital could tumble down sometime in January. City officials hope it falls as the result of work by a demolition crew, not a collapse. The Ketchikan City Council was previously awarded a $685,300 demolition contract to BAM, LLC, to tear down the building. The Ketchikan Daily News (http://bit.ly/V0tU3n)reports workers will take a weeklong course on asbestos disposal before starting the job. "My guess is it will be about the middle of January before we get in the building and start tearing it down," said BAM spokesman Mark Johnson. The four-story downtown building, converted into the Bawden Street Apartments, was declared a public emergency last year. City officials noticed it was changing shape. "Sagging in the roof, deflection in the walls," said Public Works Director Clif Allen on Wednesday, Nov. 28. Walls have bulged out as much as 18 inches, he said. The asbestos containment class for his crew ends Jan. 11. Asbestos is fire-resistant and the material was formerly used in building construction. Loose fibers can cause health problems including mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer. Asbestos in buildings as old as the former hospital often is found in settled dust, Johnson said. The building's deteriorating condition and the imminent danger of collapse makes it too dangerous to enter and remove the asbestos, Johnson said. The company instead will treat the entire structure as if it is contaminated. The company will use fire hoses to keep the building wet and dust inert. Johnson said. Ketchikan's traditional rainy January weather may help, he said. After soaking the wood-frame structure, workers plan to collapse the center first. That should pull the outer walls inward to prevent them from falling into adjacent properties, Johnson said. He estimated the company will need 10 to 14 days to complete demolition and two more weeks to haul material to a landfill. Rubble will be enveloped in plastic sheeting to keep asbestos from escaping. "There'll be a considerable amount of trucking up to the dump," Johnson said. "It's not very heavy material, it's just bulky." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Black & Decker (US), 27 Others Face Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that a Scott Depot couple is suing 28 companies they claim are responsible for a lung cancer diagnosis. Allen Johnson claims he was exposed to large quantities of asbestos-containing products during his career and was diagnosed with lung cancer and other asbestos-related diseases, in a lawsuit filed Nov. 16 in Kanawha Circuit Court. Johnson and his wife, Janet Canterbury Johnson, claim the defendants required Allen Johnson to handle products containing asbestos and exposed him to other asbestos products present in the workplace. The defendants failed to timely and adequately warn Allen Johnson of the dangers of asbestos and failed to provide him with information as to what would be reasonably safe and sufficient wearing apparel and proper protective equipment and appliances, according to the suit. The Johnsons claim the 28 defendants failed to take reasonable precautions or exercise reasonable care to publish, adopt and enforce a safety plan and/or safe method of handling and installing asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products. The defendants' actions were negligent and in flagrant disregard for the rights of others and with an awareness on their part that their conduct would result in human deaths and/or great bodily harm, according to the suit. The Johnsons are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. They are being represented by James M. Barber. The case has been assigned to a visiting judge. The 28 companies named as defendants in the suit are 3M Corporation; A.O. Smith; Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.; Blue Bird Corporation; Blue Bird Motor Company; Borg Warner Morse Tec, Inc.; CBS Corp.; Certainteed Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Genuine Auto Parts; Georgia-Pacific Corporation; Honeywell International, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Kelsey-Hayes Company; Maremont Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Ohio Valley Insulating Company, Inc.; Pneumo-Abex Corporation; Rockwell Automations, Inc.; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; State Electric Supply Company; Thomas Built Buses, Inc.; UB West Virginia, Inc.; Union Carbide Chemical & Plastics Company; Vimasco Corporation; and West Virginia Electric Supply Company. Case number: 12-C-2305. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oswego DSS Office Moves to Fulton for Abatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNY Central reports that the Oswego County Department of Social Services says it is temporarily closing its office in Mexico for asbestos abatement. The DSS office will relocate to the former Cayuga Community College facility on state Route 3 in Fulton on Dec. 14 and remain there until abatement is complete in early May, 2013. The move will take place over three days; Dec. 12-15 and DSS offices will be closed Dec. 17 while staff moves into the temporary office. The offices will open at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 18 in Fulton. Gregg Heffner, Commissioner of Social Services, says that office hours and all phone numbers for DSS will remain the same. Heffner say public transportation bus routes will not be affected by the move and people can pick up the Oswego County public transportation service at the Mexico DSS office. Oswego County Administrator Philip Church announced in March that testing revealed asbestos levels above the federal limit were present in ceiling tiles in the older part of the Mexico building, which was constructed in 1973. Church said that the ceiling tiles pose no health threat unless they are damaged or moved; however, the tiles must be moved to access the building's mechanical and communications systems. The project is expected to be completed in early May, 2013, and was previously estimated to cost up to $800,000 or more. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burnt Fibro in Razed Distillery Investigated ------------------------------------------------------------- Halesowen News (UK) reports that the revelation that asbestos was burning in Monday's (Nov. 26) giant Oldbury fire could spark another evacuation of houses around the destroyed distillery. Sandwell Council have confirmed investigations are being undertaken into the effect of asbestos being burnt in the roof of the Alcohols Ltd building. Some families are still unable to return home after the giant blaze but there are worries residents who have been allowed back in will have to leave again due to the asbestos. Cars were damaged, windows melted and fixtures and fittings outside houses surrounding the Hall Street factory were burnt due to the ferocity of the blaze, which was started due to the movement of chemicals. A Sandwell Council spokesman said: "Some residents remain unable to access their properties at Crosswells Road, Hall Street and Trident Drive; The police, contractors and surveyors will decide when the residents will be allowed back in to their homes;" "The low grade Asbestos in the roof in the burned out building has affected properties in Crosswells Road and Hall Street and it is being assessed by Coleman's Construction now." The spokesman added: "Residents may need to be moved back out of their property and some properties outside the cordon may be affected and are being inspected." West Midlands Police, West Midlands Fire, Sandwell Council, the Transport Police, Sandwell Homes and several other agencies all worked together to deal with the consequences of the fire which saw residents evacuated, trains stopped and roads closed. Several of the properties damaged are owned by Trident Housing and it is currently assessing the damage. Adam Willis, managing director of Alcohols Ltd, said: "We are indebted to the swift response of the emergency services for getting the fire under control. At this stage our thoughts are very much with all the residents who have been displaced by the fire and we are focused on working with the emergency services and council to ensure that the site is safe, power can be restored and people can return to their houses." The helpline for concerned residents is 0121 569 5152. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM Proposes Bill Aimed for NHS to Recover Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julia McWatt of The Western Mail reports that millions of pounds could be reclaimed by the NHS in Wales from companies liable for exposing workers to asbestos, if proposed new legislation is adopted. Mick Antoniw, AM for Pontypridd, said that employers -- or their insurers -- could be forced to pay back up to GBP3m for treatment costs for employees who develop conditions such as mesothelioma and asbestosis if his Asbestos (Recovery of Medical Costs) Bill becomes law. Mr. Antoniw who, as a former solicitor, represented thousands of asbestos victims and their families, said that the recovered costs would then go back into the NHS specifically to serve the needs of terminally ill patients with asbestos-related conditions. He said: "If you have an employer or insurer who has accepted that they are liable and they are to blame, then why is it they will pick up costs for the private sector, but not the public sector? "We envisage we could raise around GBP2m-3m a year for support for victims for things such as nursing care. "It might not sound a lot, but it will really help a hard-pressed NHS to help treat people with a disease that has a particular legacy in Wales." His Private Member's Bill will be debated in the National Assembly in December, and Mr. Antoniw is hopeful that it could be law by summer 2013. At a briefing on Nov. 28, he said he believed the introduction of the law would be the "right thing to do" for patients and their families. He said: "From the starting point and all along the process, I have been asking 'Is this right? Is it just? Is it fair?' "The conclusion that I came to was 'yes'. "This could really help these people who have been affected by asbestos." The event also saw the launch of the Asbestos Awareness and Support Cymru (AASC) group, which aims to become the leading connected community to enhance the quality of life for those living with asbestos related disease in Wales. Lorna Johns, strategic research and development officer at AASC, said the recent discovery of asbestos at Cwmcarn High School had highlighted that the problem was still a major issue. She said: "The National Assembly is making a great step forward with the debate over the Asbestos Bill, a move which will help improve the lives of those diagnosed with asbestos related illnesses. "All those interested in asbestos are watching Wales closely for what could be a momentous decision. "It may appear that asbestos is not as significant as other health issues at the moment, but the Cwmcarn High School incident has brought the issue of asbestos right to the top of the Welsh headlines. "We feel that more support is needed for people affected by asbestos. "We must ensure that steps to recover financial compensation are taken swiftly. "If this goes through, then it will be applauded and it is a flag to wave in front of other nations." Susan Morris, general manager for Macmillan Cancer Support in Wales, said: "We believe that the Asbestos Bill could have a significant impact on people diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to asbestos fibers. "We are particularly interested in how it is intended that the costs recovered by the Welsh Government will be used to benefit asbestos victims and their families, including support for palliative care and treatment which is vitally important," she added. ASBESTOS UPDATE: St Peter's Seminary in Cardross Contaminated ------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Foulds of The Lennox Herald reports that a "bombshell" has been dropped after it was revealed that a Cardross "building of world significance" is riddled with asbestos. St Peter's Seminary -- considered one of Scotland's great modernist structures -- has fragments of the hazardous material on every floor, a report commissioned by owners the Archdiocese of Glasgow has confirmed. Public arts charity NVA, which is aiming to raise GBP10million to help save the crumbling Roman Catholic seminary, told astonished members of Cardross Community Council. Chairman Tony Davy said the community council was extremely concerned for the many ramblers and dog walkers who routinely visit the site, as well as members of the public who travel specifically to see the A-listed building and venture inside. He said concerned community councillors were "amazed" it had only just been discovered and are demanding to know what is going to be done about it. Tony commented: "NVA dropped a bombshell on Monday night (Nov. 26). The community council were amazed NVA hadn't reported it to the council. NVA say the site is cordoned off but it is fenced rather than cordoned off. "Families ramble about up there, as do dog walkers. People with the community that have an interest in the building visit it. "We requested Councillor Richard Trail advise council building services and we are still waiting on a response." Surveying practice Asbestos Building Surveys (ABS) discovered the potentially dangerous asbestos in the building, described by international architecture conservation organization DOCOMOMO as a modern "building of world significance." NVA said the asbestos removal will take place in spring next year, adding it is the first crucial step in bringing the building back into public use. A spokesman said: "All asbestos must be treated with extreme care, the building is open to the elements and all floors contain fragments of materials which should not be handled by the public. The removal of all potentially hazardous material is included in the first phase of the on-going capital development of the project and is a positive measure. The site is already cordoned off to the public." An Archdiocese of Glasgow spokesman added: "Over the years numerous signs have been installed by the Archdiocese on the perimeter fencing around the building warning the public of the danger of entering the site, and obviously this is another significant reason to stay away from the building." It is understood Argyll and Bute Council has no statutory requirement to remove the asbestos from the private site and the only role the authority could have is enforcement. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ausgrid Slams Claims, Says Substations Are Clean ----------------------------------------------------------------- Denice Barnes for The Express Advocate Gosford Edition (Aus) reports that electricity distributor Ausgrid has refuted recent claims that eight substations on the Central Coast contain dangerous levels of asbestos. A report in the Express Advocate on Nov. 14 claimed the substations had been identified as having asbestos present and being in a "poor" state, with surface damage. They included Wyong, Vales Point, Charmhaven, Umina Beach, Peats Ridge, Noraville, Lisarow and Avoca Beach. The information was sourced from Ausgrid's own asbestos register supplied by the Electrical Trades Union. Ausgrid chief operating officer Trevor Armstrong said the information used in the article was published more than 10 years ago. "Ausgrid took the safe steps needed to clean any asbestos material that was deemed a health risk," Mr. Armstrong said. "The material published in media reports was from 2002. Over the past 12 months independent hygienist reports have been undertaken showing the substations are safe." He said two of the substations named in the article, Wyong and Charmhaven, were commissioned in 2001 and constructed with asbestos-free materials, and audits in 2009 and 2012 confirmed there was no asbestos present. He said the other six zone substations had all be inspected and audited over the past 12 months by an independent professional hygienist. He said no friable asbestos was uncovered in any of the eight Central Coast substations. One substation did have broken fibro material containing asbestos in the ceiling space. It was described as being in poor condition and the material was being removed this month. "Ausgrid has been working for more than 10 years to identify the areas where asbestos was present . . . and to safely remove it," he said. Safety Audit The Electrical Trades Union, energy providers including Ausgrid and regulators recently met Energy Minister Chris Hartcher over the asbestos issue. Mr. Hartcher said: "WorkCover has agreed to oversee an audit to determine the extent of the presence of asbestos in the electricity industry." He said the government acknowledged that this was an ongoing process. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Urged to Enlist Fibro Under Rotterdam Rule ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sky News (Aus) reports that unless the asbestos industry is shut down worldwide, hundreds of millions of workers in developing countries will be struck with disease, a union forum has heard. As part of asbestos awareness week Larry Stoffman, a Canadian anti-asbestos campaigner, is touring Australia speaking to various unions to thank them for their support and urge them to continue fighting against use of the deadly material. At Unions NSW forum in Sydney on Thursday, Nov. 29, he said unless the asbestos industry around the world was shut down "we can look forward to hundreds of millions of workers being struck with asbestos related diseases in the next 10, 20, 30 years." Unions NSW also used the forum to call on the Commonwealth government to put pressure on Canada to support the inclusion of asbestos in an international convention. It would ensure shared responsibility for the exportation of hazardous material, Unions NSW said. Although it has stopped mining asbestos, Canada is the only G8 country that has "actively objected the listing of chrysotile asbestos fibers on the Rotterdam Convention", Unions NSW added. The union wants Foreign Minister Bob Carr to insist the Canadian government support the inclusion of asbestos in the convention when the next meeting is held in May 2013. Mr. Stoffman has also called on Australia to host a meeting with governments from around the region aimed at ending the use of asbestos. He wants Australia and Canada to step up financial contributions to communities in developing regions to help them become asbestos free and assist with the health consequences of its use. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Faces Commonwealth, MassDEP Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- According to The Swampscott Reporter, a demolition company from Swampscott has been ordered to pay the Commonwealth $100,000 in civil penalties for the alleged improper removal and disposal of asbestos-containing waste at locations throughout eastern Massachusetts, including the Hook Lobster Company building on the Boston waterfront, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced Nov. 29. According to the complaint, Total Dismantling and Carting Services, Inc., and its successor, The Total Group, Inc., both of Swampscott, violated the state's Clean Air Act by repeatedly removing and disposing of asbestos-containing material without notifying the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) that the work was going to occur. The Clean Air Act requires notifications to MassDEP to ensure that demolition and renovation companies are properly handling and disposing of asbestos. "Companies are not permitted to risk public health, safety, or the environment by failing to properly handle asbestos or by failing to disclose when they are working at demolition sites that involve asbestos," AG Coakley said. "It is especially important to take the proper precautions in a heavily traveled area like the Boston waterfront." "MassDEP works to ensure that asbestos-containing materials are identified and properly removed, handled, packaged and stored in accordance with the regulations," said MassDEP Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell. "Failure to follow the right procedures is an extremely serious oversight that potentially exposes workers and the general public to a known carcinogen and inevitably results in significant penalty exposure for the violator." The complaint also alleges that Total Dismantling and Carting Services and Removal Specialists demolished the former Hook Lobster Building in 2008 after it burned in a fire without removing all of the asbestos-containing material first and without notifying MassDEP that it was going to perform the work. Additionally, the company allegedly failed to use the proper containment procedures at the Hook Lobster demolition site and during transport to an unpermitted storage site in Revere. The consent judgment, approved in Suffolk Superior Court today, requires Total Dismantling and Carting Services Inc., and the Total Group to pay a civil penalty of $100,000 for their share of the violations involving the Hook site as well as violations at three other demolition sites in Saugus, Malden and Swampscott. Half of that amount in the settlement is suspended provided the companies comply with the judgment and commit no further violations during a 5-year probationary period. Assistant Attorney General Louis Dundin, of the AG's Environmental Protection Division, is representing the Commonwealth in the litigation. Attorney Colleen McConnell is handling the case for MassDEP, along with environmental analysts John MacAuley and Karen Golden-Smith of MassDEP's Northeast Regional Office. ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Milford Resolves Abatement Issue on Lot Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Devencentis for NorthJersey.com News reports that the New Milford governing body has approved a measure that tacks on a condition of asbestos removal to its agreement to buy property on Steuben Avenue. At its work session on Nov. 12, the Borough Council unanimously passed a resolution authorizing Mayor Ann Subrizi to sign the rider to contract of sale of 1033 Steuben Ave., commonly known as the Van Eck property. The stipulation states that the seller, Margaret Healy, of Pacific Street, must remove asbestos from the property prior to closing with the borough. A 2-1/2 story house exists on the property, which is less than an acre. The house will be razed by the borough after the asbestos is removed. The property abuts the Hackensack River and New Milford Woods, a 7-1/2 acre tract that the borough preserved with a county grant in 1999. The Van Eck property will be added to the borough's open space inventory. According to the resolution, the rider increases the contract price to cover half of the cost of the asbestos removal. The borough agreed to buy the property in August 2011 for $60,000. The cost of the property is being subsidized through a $50,000 grant the borough received from the Bergen County Open Space, Recreation, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Integrates Fibro With Emergency Services ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Green of The Inverell Times reports that an expert on asbestos, Darryl Dixon is undertaking a Masters of Emergency Management at Charles Sturt University and he was in Inverell on Nov. 27. He is with the Australian Graduate School of Policing at Manly and currently working on a thesis that looks into the exposure of emergency services to asbestos, but his research is wide-ranging. "A lot of people believe it (asbestos) was something used in the '40s after World War II and it basically doesn't exist anymore," Mr. Dixon said. "People who weren't of that generation have no idea what it looks like because it's no longer produced and its use is very rare. In 2003 it was completely banned in Australia, so anyone born from the 1980's onwards has probably never seen a house made of asbestos or made the decision to use asbestos knowingly in their house. "Asbestos was used in products from toaster ovens to break gaskets to adding in bathrooms, kitchens were made of it, even to the backyard toilet." Mr. Dixon said it is predicted that one in four houses built before 1983 have it in some form. "At the moment there's a strong emphasis on do it yourself renovators who aren't aware of what asbestos is and what products it was put into," Mr. Dixon said. "The asbestos issue has started to increase in relation to asbestosis and mesothelioma diagnosis . . . which can take up to 20 to 30 years to manifest. "Unfortunately it's predicted in the next 20 years it'll overtake most other forms of cancer, including heart disease and lung diseases as a form of killer." Mr. Dixon was in Inverell at the invitation of Rural Fire Service (RFS) Inspector Konrad Sawczynski to speak at an emergency services workshop held in the SES Headquarters building in conjunction with Asbestos Awareness Week. ". . . it's a prime opportune time to raise awareness that we may have asbestos involved in some of the incidents we respond to," Inspector Sawczynski said. "We're looking at any house built before 2003 may contain asbestos, so we take protective measures . . . in that we treat all of them as if they have asbestos in them. "It's part of our role now that we deal with not only the fire but the asbestos side of it as well." Inspector Sawczynski said he thinks public awareness of the danger is very low. "I don't think the true dangers of asbestos are that widespread in the public," he said. "People are aware of asbestos, but I don't think they are aware of just how dangerous it can be. "I think because it's a long-term killer and a silent killer that that level of awareness isn't where it should be, unfortunately." Mr. Dixon said his thesis is looking into Australia's first known research comparing emergency services nationwide and their policies, procedures and training into asbestos incidents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loyd E. Mitchell Can Implement Insurers' Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bankruptcy Judge Nancy V. Alquist lifted the automatic stay in the asbestos-related Chapter 11 case of Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., to permit the implementation of a settlement agreement reached earlier in the case. Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that formerly operated a mechanical contracting business in the Baltimore metropolitan area. Since it ceased operations in 1976 and liquidated its operating assets, it has been primarily consumed by defending against asbestos-related personal injury claims and dealing with insurance coverage issues. The extent to which insurance policies written by Maryland Casualty Company provide coverage for asbestos claims is the subject of litigation in the Circuit Court for Harford County, Maryland. Additional parties have joined in the Harford County Litigation to preserve and protect their rights, including a putative class of asbestos personal injury claimants, as well as additional insurers. The Harford County Litigation presided over by the Honorable William O. Carr, is in some state of being certified as a class action lawsuit. The settling parties are Maryland Casualty Company; The Travelers Indemnity Company; the Debtor; and the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C. on behalf of certain clients with asbestos-related claims. The settlement agreement would resolve more than 9,000 outstanding Asbestos Claims against the Debtor. The Settlement Agreement would also resolve Maryland Casualty's outstanding claims against the Debtor for reimbursement and breach of an earlier settlement agreement between the parties. In addition, the Settlement Agreement would resolve a number of other matters that are pending in the bankruptcy case including the (1) Joint Motion of Debtor and Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case, (2) the Cross Motion to Appoint Trustee filed by Maryland Casualty, and (3) the Insurers' Joint Liquidating Plan. The Settling Parties previously sought relief from the bankruptcy stay (1) to submit the Settlement Agreement for Approval to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a determination if the amounts proposed to be paid to the settling claimants are fair and reasonable, (2) if approval was obtained from the Baltimore City Court, for leave to go to Judge Carr to request permission to dismiss the claims they have against each other in the Harford County Litigation, including the claims for coverage by the settling asbestos claimants, and (3) to pay the claims being settled. The Court lifted the stay to permit the parties to seek the approval of Judge Carr in the Harford County Litigation as to the fairness and appropriateness of the Settlement Agreement, and also to seek the approval of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City of the terms of the payment of the individual claims. The Court did not authorize any claims to be paid at that time. Subsequently, the parties obtained an order approving the settlement terms from each of the two state courts. The parties now return to the Bankruptcy Court Court to seek authorization to consummate the Settlement Agreement, including the payment of claims. A copy of Judge Alquist's Nov. 29, 2012 Memorandum Order is available at http://is.gd/OLs2zgfrom Leagle.com. Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. D. Md. Case No. 06-13250) on June 6, 2006. Judge Nancy V. Alquist oversees the case. Mark J. Friedman, Esq., at DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, serves as the Debtor's counsel. In its petition, the Debtor estimated $10 million to $50 million in both assets and debts. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wallace & Gale Trust Blocks PI Suits ----------------------------------------------------- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granting summary judgment in favor of The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust in a consolidated case in which personal representatives of the estates of four decedents were seeking to hold the Trust liable for paying a portion of judgments previously entered in favor of the representatives in earlier asbestos litigation. In 1984, W & G filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and as a consequence, was not a party to the four asbestos cases at the time when the representatives obtained judgments against other parties. The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust is the successor to Wallace & Gale, a Baltimore-based insulation contractor that installed asbestos-containing products at various locations in the Baltimore region, including at Bethlehem Steel facilities. The Trust moved for Summary Judgment against various asbestos plaintiffs on the grounds that their cases have been tried to final judgment against other defendants, while Wallace & Gale was in bankruptcy. The Plaintiffs oppose the Motions claiming they should be permitted to recover additional money for the same injury from the Trust. Wallace & Gale remained under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court until 2006. When that Court confirmed their Plan, the Company emerged in the form of the Trust, an entity whose only potential assets were insurance policies that could fund the Trust in order to pay asbestos claims. According to the Maryland Appeals Court, the circuit court correctly ruled that final judgment rule precludes further litigation seeking further compensation for the same injuries from further defendants. The circuit court did not err in granting the Trust's motion for summary judgment. The case is CHARLES T. BRANNAN, JR., et al., v. WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, No. 2287, September Term 2012 (Md. App. Ct.). A copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2012 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/CtxQhPfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Date of Disablement Ruling v. Astro ------------------------------------------------------------------ In a Nov. 8, 2012 memorandum and order, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department, affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's determination that, based upon an independent medical examination, claimant James Ward suffered from asbestosis with a date of disablement of May 17, 2006, and that, pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law Sec. 44-a, the claimant experienced the last injurious exposure to asbestos during his employment with Astro Fuel Service Company. In its ruling, the Appellate Court noted that when a claimant suffers his or her last injurious exposure to a dust hazard pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law Sec. 44-a is a question of fact for the Board to resolve and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence. In the instant case, the claimant testified that Astro was the last employer for which he worked prior to his date of disablement, that he had been exposed to asbestos while so employed and that, despite performing some work on his own after leaving Astro, he had not been exposed to asbestos. While a representative of Astro testified that claimant was not exposed to asbestos during his employment there, credibility determinations and the resolution of conflicting evidence are within the exclusive province of the Board, the Appellate Court ruled. Thus, despite the existence of evidence that would have supported a contrary conclusion, the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Appellate Court concluded. The case is IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF JAMES WARD, Claimant, v. GENERAL UTILITIES ET AL., Respondents, AND NY CHOICE SELF- INSURANCE TRUST ET AL., Appellants, WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent, 512606 (N.Y.). A copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/QhS20Efrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Says Children Are Claimant's Heirs -------------------------------------------------------------- Easter I. Collins, as survivor to her husband, William L. Collins, inherited $46,711 from settlements on Mr. Collins' asbestos- related wrongful death claim. Ms. Collins was named survivor despite the presence of Mr. Collins three children from a previous marriage. When Ms. Collins died, her daughter, Gloria Shurelds, applied to be appointed as the successor administrator of Collins' estate. One of Mr. Collins' children, Eddis, filed her own motion to be named administrator of her father's estate. Following a trial, a trial court determined that Collins' heirs at law were Easter and his three children. The administrator of Easter's estate, Lee Tolbert, appealed from the judgment. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Allen County, in an opinion dated Nov. 13, 2012, affirmed the trial court's ruling after determining that there is more than sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding. The evidence in the case established that the Collins' children were all children of Williams Collins and that no question of paternity was ever raised by anyone. The case is IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: WILLIAM L. COLLINS, SR. [LEE TOLBERT, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF EASTER I. SMITH- APPELLANT, No. 1-11-63 (Ohio Appt. Ct.). A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/HzQrAdfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Ordered to Insure Alfa Laval ------------------------------------------------------- Alfa Laval Inc. filed an action seeking insurance coverage under policies issued by several companies, including Travelers Casualty and Surety Company and OneBeacon America Insurance Company, for asbestos bodily injury claims brought against Alfa Laval and its predecessor in name, DeLaval, as well as Alfa Laval's historical competitor, a company named Sharples, Inc., which assets Alfa Laval acquired in 1988. In a decision dated Nov. 13, 2012, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, held that in this case, affirmed a lower court's ruling holding that although the pro rata sharing of defense costs may be ordered when more than one policy is triggered by a claim, in the interest of judicial economy, the lower court did not err in declining to order such sharing at this time, with the understanding that Travelers, Alfa Laval's longest standing insurer, may later obtain contribution from other insurers on applicable policies. The Appellate Division, however, agreed with OneBeacon that the court's ruling was inconsistent to the extent that both Travelers and OneBeacon cannot viably provide Alfa Laval's complete defense if both their policies are implicated by the same underlying action. In that case, Travelers, as the long standing insurer, should provide a complete defense, and OneBeacon may eventually be required to contribute to both defense costs and indemnification on a pro rata basis, the Appellate Division held. The case TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE AETNA CASULTY INSURITY COMPANY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALFA LAVAL INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE DeLAVAL SEPERATOR COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, OneBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant- Appellant, 8484, 650667/09 (N.Y.). A copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/vg8pZ2from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants More Time to Perfect Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, enlarged the time to perfect an appeal to the March 2013 Term in the case IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION -- DUMMITT. v. A.W. CHESTERTON -- CRANE CO., Motion No. M-4595 (N.Y.). A copy of the Decision dated Nov. 15, 2012, is available at http://is.gd/TCt3uofrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Affirms Judgment Favoring Kemper, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Femand Fortune Bougere was employed by Avondale Shipyards, Inc., from 1945 until his retirement as a welding supervisor in 1986. During his employment, Mr. Bougere was exposed to asbestos fibers allegedly causing him to contract mesothelioma from which he died in 2010. The following year, Mr. Bougere's surviving wife and children filed suit against Kemper Insurance Group, The Travelers Indemnity Company, and Commercial Union Insurance Company, as Avondale's executive officers' insurers, asserting both survival and wrongful death claims. Defendants filed an exception of no cause of action as to plaintiffs' wrongful death claims, asserting that Avondale's executive officers are granted tort immunity. The trial court conducted a hearing and sustained defendants' exception of no cause of action, dismissing plaintiffs' wrongful death claims. Because the judgment granting defendants' exception of no cause of action did not dispose of all claims in litigation, plaintiffs filed a motion to have the judgment designated final, which the trial court granted. The Plaintiffs then appealed. In a Nov. 13, 2012 decision, the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the trial court's decision holding that the post-amendment law applies in this case, extending tort immunity to Avondale's executive officers and barring the Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims against the Defendants. The case is MILDRED M. BOUGERE, VICKI BOUGERE FLEMING, WILLIAM R. E. BOUGERE AND GARY BOUGERE, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR TO AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC.) AVONDALE SHIPYARDS INC., KEMPER INSURANCE GROUP, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY AND COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 12-CA-181 (La. App. Ct.). A copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/8MDv61from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Orders New Trial on Suit v. AstenJohnson ------------------------------------------------------------------ Henry Barabin was exposed to asbestos from 1964 through 1984. He was employed from 1968 until his retirement in 2001 at the Crown- Zellerbach paper mill, which used dryer felts containing asbestos supplied by AstenJohnson, Inc., and Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. During his employment, Henry worked in various jobs that exposed him to the dryer felts that AstenJohnson and Scapa provided. Henry also took pieces of dryer felt home to use in his garden. In November, 2006, Henry was diagnosed with pleural malignant epithelial mesothelioma. It is undisputed that exposure to respirable asbestos causes mesothelioma. AstenJohnson and Scapa appeal a district court's entry of judgment in favor of Henry and Geraldine Barabin following a jury trial resolving Henry Barabin's claim that his mesothelioma was caused by occupational exposure to asbestos. AstenJohnson and Scapa contend that the district court abused its discretion by improperly admitting expert evidence. In a Nov. 16, 2012, Opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial for the district court's failure to fulfill its obligations under Daubert. Because no Daubert was conducted as requested, the district court failed to assess the scientific methodologies, reasoning, or principles applied by the experts presented by the Plaintiffs. The cases are HENRY BARABIN; GERALDINE BARABIN, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. ASTENJOHNSON, INC., Defendant-Appellant and HENRY BARABIN; GERALDINE BARABIN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ASTENJOHNSON, INC., Defendant, and SCAPA DRYER FABRICS, INC., Defendant- Appellant, Nos. 10-36142, 11-35020 (9th Cir.). A copy of the Decision is at http://is.gd/UylhoWfrom Leagle.com. ********* 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 * * *