/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130301.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 1, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 43 Headlines AETNA INC: Merger-Related Suits in Maryland Voluntarily Dismissed AETNA INC: Settles Aetna UCR Litigation for $60-Mil. AMERICAN EXPRESS: News Outlets Mum on Arbitration Hearing BAYER AG: Mirena Plaintiff's Attorneys Seek Class Action or MDL BOEHRINGER INGLEHEIM: Faces Uphill Battle in Pradaxa Suit BOULDER BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertisement CHICAGO BRIDGE: Has Yet to File Final Settlement Documents CITICORP CREDIT: Arbitration Bid in "Brown" Suit Denied CLECO CORP: Only One Matter Remains in Louisiana Customer Suit CRUSADER SERVICING: Gets More Time to File Class Action Response EMPIRE STATE: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval FIFTH THIRD: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification Denial FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Dismissal of Hawaii Suit Pending FRESH DEL MONTE: Fla. Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending FRESH DEL MONTE: Still Defends Suits Over Extra Sweet Pineapples INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay JOHNS HOPKINS: Doctor's Patients File Privacy Class Action LEGAL HELPERS: Faces Suit Over Failure to Perform Mortgage Change MCDONALD'S CORP: Majed Moughni Balks at Cy Pres Settlement NETFLIX INC: Faces Class Action Over 25% Share Drop NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Suit vs. Genaera Liquidating Trust PEPSI-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dismissal of Consumer Suit Reversed in Part SANDISK CORP: Briefing in SD Cards Suit Appeal to End by 2013 2Q SANDISK CORP: Discovery in "Ritz" Class Action Suit Now Open STRAYER EDUCATION: Dismissal of "Kinnett" Suit Upheld in Dec. TOYOTA MOTOR: Vehicle Owners Invited to Join Acceleration Suit TREX CO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Mold Growth in Products TREX CO: Mold Claims in Defective Products Suit Remain Pending WAL-MART STORES: Nichols Kaster Files Gender Bias Class Action WEYERHAEUSER CO: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit WHIRLPOOL CORP: Product Liability Lawsuits Remain Pending WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settles Direct Purchasers' Claims in Embraco Suit WYNDHAM VACATION: Couple Files Class Action Over Timeshares Fraud Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Revise Order in Suit v. Union Carbide ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates Warned of Abusive Litigation Conduct ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln's Appeal From Ex-Worker's Judgment Junked ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment For CBS & Crane Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. Ct. Dismisses Inmate's Pro Se Complaint ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Junks Exposure Suit v. Tishman ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $602MM Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Paid $15MM in Settlements in 2012 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Continues to Defend Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Expects to Spend $480MM in 2013 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 23,141 Bendix-Related Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Asserts Coverage on NARCO Issues ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 45,900 Claims Pending at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Estimates $671MM Liability End Dec. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Had 2,600 Claims Pending End Dec. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From Owens-Illinois Judgment Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Awaits Order on Consolidation Bid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Has 1,080 Unresolved Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Had 141 Pending Cases at Nov. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 73,200 Pending Claims End Dec. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural Units Defends 76 Active Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Workers Defenseless Against Fibro Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 Schools in Arizona Non-Compliant With EPA Law ASBESTOS UPDATE: IARC Calls For Ban to All Forms of Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Schools at Liverpool Central up for Abatement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uganda Orders the Removal of Fibro From Schools ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge to Hear Libby Attorney's Fee Appeal March 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCI Probes ACPMA for Anti-Competitive Practices ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Pleas for Info on Swanton Hazmat Dumping ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Cites Six AZ Districts for AHERA Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Review Suggests Reopening Safe Areas of Cwmcarn ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumbarton Middle School Completes Minor Abatement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Capricorn Coast Warned of After-Storm Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Voters Decide Guilford Central Abatement Plan ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Fines Decade Long Violator $414,488 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swan Pond Village Abatement Irks Tenant ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation, 43 Others Face Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caerphilly Council Hires Expert to Review Reports ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Says 600 Mechanics Die from ARD Yearly ASBESTOS UPDATE: Permit to Bury Fibro in Austin Facility Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robert Scott Prison's Full Fibro Test Initiated ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Sentence Awaits Belfast Trust in March ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Slams Misinformation by ICA In Pakistan ASBESTOS UPDATE: Russia; New "Lead Saboteur" In Anti-Fibro Efforts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ajax Magnethermic, 28 Others Face Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Hazmat Crews Hush Fibro Scare in Malabar ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Disposal Fee Blamed for Illegal Dumping ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Asserts Compliance to Fibro Regulations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charles Lucas & Marshall Wins Payout for Client ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Stir-Up in Derwent House Basement Contained ASBESTOS UPDATE: Photographer Finds Fibro Emitted By Blow Dryer ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Town Residents Flee From Contaminated Debris ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Control Plan Ready for Section 5 Project ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Snubs 237 WorkSafeBC Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Petrochemical, 8 Others Face Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Armitage Shanks Worker Receives GBP160,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kiama Fibro Cleanup Eyed To Wrap Up Soon ASBESTOS UPDATE: Castlehill Back To Normal After Fibro False Alarm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlton & United, Amaca Pty Face Meso Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unmanned Truck Rolls Through a Fibro House ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBN Co Launches Own Investigation on Fibro Issue ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Fibro Fallout at Dale Farm Begins ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tribunal Awards Mesothelioma Sufferer AUD1.3 MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Storm Damaged Fibro Imperil Bellingen Residents ********* AETNA INC: Merger-Related Suits in Maryland Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aetna Inc. disclosed in its February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that acquisition-related lawsuits commenced in Maryland were voluntarily dismissed. On August 19, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive agreement (as amended, and as may be further amended, the "Merger Agreement") to acquire Coventry Health Care, Inc. in a transaction valued at approximately $7.3 billion, based on the closing price of Aetna common shares on August 17, 2012, including the assumption of Coventry debt. Coventry is a diversified managed health care company that offers a full portfolio of risk and fee- based products, including Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D programs, Medicaid managed care plans, group and individual health insurance, coverage for specialty services such as workers' compensation, and network rental services. The Company projects that the Coventry acquisition will add medical membership, which will enhance its diversified portfolio, increase its presence in government programs, which is an important element of the Company's growth strategy, and improve its positioning and reach in health insurance exchange-based businesses. In connection with the proposed Coventry acquisition, several purported stockholders of Coventry have filed putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (the "Maryland Court"). These lawsuits seek, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from completing the proposed transaction and other types of money damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On November 12, 2012, the parties to the actions pending in Delaware executed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") containing the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to resolve the Delaware actions. The MOU provides that the parties will agree upon and execute a stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation"), which will replace the MOU and which will be submitted to the Chancery Court for review and approval following notice to the shareholders of Coventry. The settlement will not affect the form or amount of consideration to be received by Coventry stockholders in the transaction. On February 13, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Maryland litigation requested that the Maryland Court voluntarily dismiss their lawsuits without prejudice. One of the conditions to completion of the proposed acquisition is the absence of any applicable law (including any order) being in effect that prohibits completion of the proposed acquisition. Accordingly, if a plaintiff is successful in obtaining an order prohibiting completion of the transaction, then such order may prevent the transaction from being completed, or from being completed within the expected timeframe. In addition, the defense or settlement of any of these lawsuits or claims may adversely affect the combined company's business, financial condition or operating results following any closing of the proposed acquisition. AETNA INC: Settles Aetna UCR Litigation for $60-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------- Aetna Inc. settled for $60 million in December 2012 the claims in the consolidated lawsuit styled In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Aetna Inc. is named as a defendant in several purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of the Company's practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to its members by health care providers with whom the Company does not have a contract ("out-of-network providers"). Among other things, these lawsuits allege that the Company paid too little to its health plan members and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because of the Company's use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar litigation. Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of- network providers who provided services to the Company's members during the period from 2001 to the present. Various plaintiffs who are members in the Company's health plans seek to represent nationwide classes of the Company's members who received services from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present. Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the Company violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with the Company's competitors. The purported classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify the Company from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA. Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers. The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007. The federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020"). In addition, the MDL Panel has transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020. On May 9, 2011, the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs from MDL 2020 without prejudice. The New Jersey District Court's action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court") that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's ruling. On December 6, 2012, the Company entered into an agreement to settle MDL No. 2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, the Company will be released from claims relating to the Company's out-of-network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the applicable settlement class period through the date the New Jersey District Court preliminarily approves the settlement. The settlement class period for health plan members begins on March 1, 2001, and the settlement class period for health care providers begins on June 3, 2003. The agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The medical associations are not parties to the settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement, the Company will pay $60 million, the substantial majority of which will be payable upon final court approval of the settlement, and pay up to an additional $60 million at the end of a claim submission and validation period that commences upon final court approval of the settlement. These payments will fund claims submitted by health plan members who are members of the plaintiff class and health care providers who are members of the plaintiff class. These payments also will fund the legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering the settlement, in each case in amounts to be determined by the New Jersey District Court. The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval. Final court approval of the settlement is expected during 2013 but could be delayed by appeals or other proceedings. In addition, the Company has the right to terminate the settlement agreement if more than certain percentages of class members, or class members collectively holding specified dollar amounts of claims, elect to opt-out of the settlement. In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an after-tax charge to net income of approximately $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. The Company will pay for the settlement with available resources and expects the settlement payments to occur over the next twelve to twenty-four months. The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the claims brought in these cases by non-settling plaintiffs. The Company also has received subpoenas and/or requests for documents and other information from, and been investigated by, attorneys general and other state and/or federal regulators, legislators and agencies relating to the Company's out-of-network benefit payment practices. It is reasonably possible that others could initiate additional litigation or additional regulatory action against the Company with respect to its out-of-network benefit payment practices. AMERICAN EXPRESS: News Outlets Mum on Arbitration Hearing --------------------------------------------------------- Lara Schwartz, writing for Media Matters for America, reports that news outlets have largely ignored the legal barriers that the Supreme Court has erected in between injured consumers and access to compensation -- including a current case that could give big business the power to place themselves beyond the reach of federal laws by preventing consumers and small businesses from bringing class action lawsuits. That's surprising, considering the extensive media coverage of the story of 3,000 passengers on Carnival Cruise Line's Triumph who spent five days floating in the Gulf of Mexico with no power or plumbing, and finally disembarked in Mobile, Alabama. On February 20, attorneys for the passengers filed a class-action lawsuit against Carnival, claiming that the cruise line acted negligently by sending the Triumph to sea when they knew the ship had mechanical problems. It was the second major crisis on a Carnival ship in a year. Thanks to a series of Supreme Court cases limiting class actions and upholding arbitration agreements, those passengers are facing an uphill climb with their lawsuit. Carnival's ticket contract itself contains an arbitration clause requiring customers to waive their right to bring claims against Carnival in court. It also includes a "class-action waiver" that states: "This contract provides for the exclusive resolution of disputes through individual legal action on guest's own behalf instead of through any class action." If enforced, a class-action waiver creates a David and Goliath dynamic. As legal expert Dahlia Lithwick has explained, class actions often level the playing field between individual claimants and big defendants such as employers. The Supreme Court has made it increasingly difficult to pursue class actions. For example in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Court rejected a class-action suit brought by female Wal-Mart employees who claimed they were subjected to discrimination in pay and promotions. The practical result: Wal- Mart employees would have to jump over significant hurdles to pursue class action; otherwise, they are forced to go it alone against the number two corporation in the Fortune 500. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes explained that the Court took "an opportunity to give corporate America a huge advantage over everyday American citizens." These decisions, which leave plaintiffs to go it alone against corporations and waive their day in court based on agreements they didn't have an opportunity to negotiate, set the stage for an upcoming Supreme Court case that could shift the balance even further in favor of big business, allowing them to use these form agreements as an end run around federal law. On February 27, the Court will hear oral arguments in American Express Co v. Italian Colors Restaurant, in which it will weigh whether class-action waiver provisions in an arbitration clause are enforceable even when refusing to allow the class action to go forward would make it functionally impossible to vindicate federal statutory rights at all. Businesses that accept American Express charge cards must agree to a class-action waiver and waive any other means of sharing the cost of legal proceedings against the company. American Express insists that businesses accept their unpopular credit cards if they want to accept the popular ones, which the businesses claim is a "tying arrangement" that violates the antitrust laws. Because pursuing antitrust claims is expensive, the cost of arbitrating an individual case would dwarf any possible recovery-- meaning that if the plaintiffs cannot proceed as a class or share expenses, the antitrust claim is dead in the water. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Am Ex's arbitration agreement, which includes a class-action waiver, was unenforceable because it would prevent the merchants from effectively vindicating their federal statutory rights. Importantly, the court noted that enforcing the waiver would prevent an antitrust claim from being litigated at all: "Amex has brought no serious challenge to the plaintiffs' demonstration that their claims cannot reasonably be pursued as individual actions, whether in federal court or in arbitration, we find ourselves in agreement with the plaintiffs' contention that enforcement of the class action waiver in the Card Acceptance Agreement 'flatly ensures that no small merchant may challenge American Express's tying arrangements under the federal antitrust laws.'" The bottom line is this: if the Supreme Court reverses the Second Circuit's decision, small businesses and consumers could be forced to waive -- through form contracts -- longstanding statutory rights in order to do businesses with large corporations. This gives corporations significant power to evade federal law. As the Supreme Court explained in Reiter v. Sonotone (1979), even though the Department of Justice may also enforce antitrust laws, private litigation is important because "These private suits provide a significant supplement to the limited resources available to the Department of Justice for enforcing the antitrust laws and deterring violations. Indeed, nearly 20 times as many private antitrust actions are currently pending in the federal courts as actions filed by the Department of Justice." When the Court strikes down or blunts the power of duly-enacted legislation, legal commentators -- conservative and progressive alike -- often invoke the term "judicial activism," charging that the Court overstepped its bounds. But in AmEx, the Court will consider whether corporations can wield that power. While big business and consumer groups recognize what's at stake -the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Public Citizen both filed amicus briefs- the media apparently does not. Even The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog's post on the Carnival Triumph debacle, while accurately noting that the cruise industry has adopted mandatory arbitration clauses, didn't note that the scope of these clauses is currently before the Court. There are exceptions, such as conservative attorney Theodore H. Frank, whose organization, which is funded by the right-wing Donors Trust, is dedicated to limiting access to class actions. In an Investor's Business Daily op-ed, Frank attempts to turn attention away from the problem of illegal tying arrangements, pointing out that the real problem is class actions themselves. He writes "[i]n reality, consumers would be better off if they had the right to promise that they would avoid bringing the class action in the first place." According to Frank, lawyers who pursue class actions are interested because these cases are lucrative for them. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who is representing the merchants in AmEx, doesn't see it that way. His firm often represents big corporate clients like Exxon Mobil. Mr. Clement, whose strong oral argument performance attacking the Affordable Care Act was the talk of the last Court term, and who is in the headlines again for defending the Defense of Marriage Act before the Court this term, is not a class-action attorney. He has made clear that the case is not about attacking arbitration provisions, but preserving the merchants' statutory rights: "This is thus truly a case in which the alternative to litigation is not arbitration, but nothing." Mr. Frank also claims that those who are concerned about the dangers of reversing the Second Circuit's decision are "Chicken Littles," and recasts the AmEx case as a struggle to preserve arbitration itself. That would probably come as a surprise to the group of professional arbitrators, mediators, and arbitration professors who filed an amicus brief in support of the merchants. They state that "[American Express's] argument that the [Federal Arbitration Act] requires enforcement of an arbitration clause even where it is undisputed that the consequence is that the resolution of the underlying claims in arbitration is impossible, if adopted, will reduce public confidence in the arbitration system and leave it a more weakened institution." With less than a week left until oral argument, AmEx is something of a sleeper case. But that has everything to do with inadequate media coverage and nothing to do with how much is at stake. BAYER AG: Mirena Plaintiff's Attorneys Seek Class Action or MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- Seedol.com reports that plaintiff's attorneys in the Mirena lawsuit case petition for a mass action similar to a Class Action Lawsuit. Plaintiffs attorneys have made application to form an MDL with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) for consolidation of Mirena lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL). A Mirena Lawsuit Multidistrict Litigation would be similar to a Mirena Class Action Lawsuit. Bayer, the defendant, opposes the Mirena lawyers' petition for consolidation but last year had also petitioned the JPML for a consolidation into an MDL. Reportedly, a large number of Mirena lawsuits alleging serious injury potentially caused by the use of the Mirena IUD contraceptive have been filed to date. Mirena lawsuit allegations include claims of serious injury following migration of the Mirena IUD contraceptive device and include claims of perforation. Why does Bayer now oppose the idea of a Mirena lawsuit MDL? The manufacturer would like to refute the claims made against them by the Plaintiffs. The drug manufacturer with worldwide dominance in pharmaceuticals asserts that their ability to mount a defense will be damaged if an MDL is formed despite their earlier petition for consolidation. Mirena Lawsuit 2012 On August 9, 2012, Bayer petitioned for the consolidation of the Mirena lawsuit cases into an MDL in Middlesex County, New Jersey. Bayer's petition reads in part "Dear Judge Grant: This firm represents Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and a number of additional Bayer related entities in several matters recently filed in Morris County Superior Court alleging injuries as a result of use of the Defendants' contraceptive Device, commonly known as Mirena." The petition goes on to read "Defendants submit this application respectfully requesting Centralized Management of these matters." In the petition, Bayer also asserts "because Morris County does not have a Mass Tort Court, Defendants respectfully request Centralized management of these matters in Middlesex County, the closest and most convenient mass Tort venue to their original location". It does not take much research to learn how many jobs Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals provides to that area. Sites like "simplyhired.com" and "indeed.com" maintain a long list of job availabilities for residents in the surrounding areas. Bayer also maintains a Web site listing US locations. Three of the locations listed are in New Jersey. Is it not reasonable to believe an employer of such importance to an area might have the ability to significantly prejudice the available jury pool? The intent to impact the jury pool might not be overt but nonetheless the possibility of partiality toward Bayer among jurors is likely high. Bayer's petition for consolidation of Mirena lawsuits into an MDL to be presided over by a New Jersey court was denied on January 8, 2013. Mirena lawyers for the Plaintiffs have requested oversight of an MDL, if formed, to be established in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio. Bayer does not have any locations in northern Ohio, perhaps an unspoken reason for their opposition of the formation of an MDL in that district. BOEHRINGER INGLEHEIM: Faces Uphill Battle in Pradaxa Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The facts in the Pradaxa Lawsuit MDL or Pradaxa Class Action Lawsuit are still in dispute however, experts following the case believe that the defendant in the case has an uphill battle. The sheer volume of allegations and the support for those allegations make it unlikely that the Pradaxa Lawsuit defendant, Boehringer Ingleheim will be able to mount a successful defense. The claims made in Pradaxa Lawsuit cases are serious and in large numbers. Even if the Pradaxa Lawsuit defendant were to overcome some of the allegations against them, overcoming all of the allegations, which would be necessary to prevail in the litigation, may be impossible. Pradaxa Class Action Lawsuit Info In recent Pradaxa News, Boehringer Ingleheim lost attempt to block information in the Pradaxa lawsuit MDL. Boehringer Ingleheim tried to block the release of information regarding prior allegations of wrong doing in lawsuits previously brought against them. Judge David Herndon denied the manufacturer's request and ordered Boehringer to turn over evidence requested by Pradaxa lawyers fighting for the rights of their clients in the Pradaxa lawsuit cases. This important decision may help tip the scales in favor of the Pradaxa lawyers claiming Pradaxa side effects caused their clients to suffer serious injury or death. Claims made against the manufacturer of Pradaxa Boehringer Ingleheim, include failure to warn and over promotion of the product. This is not the first go-round for the bevy of well- heeled attorneys defending the manufacturer. Previous lawsuits brought against them about other of their products may include claims similar to those found in the Pradaxa lawsuit claims. If the manufacturer has previously been accused of encouraging off- label use, over promotion or failure to warn, they will not be able to hide that fact in court thanks to an order handed down by the presiding Judge the Honorable Rodney David Herndon. There is NO antidote for Pradaxa side effects bleeding! Approved and released in 2010, Pradaxa enjoyed enormous popularity among patients and physicians initially. The blood thinner was approved for use to prevent stroke in sufferers of atrial fibrillation. The drug promised to make life easier for people at risk of developing deadly blood clots. Allegations are the manufacturer may have spent more dollars marketing the drug than they did warning the public and physicians about the potential risks associated with taking a blood thinner without an available antidote. The manufacturer heavily marketed Pradaxa as the new blood thinner on the block blood thinner that freed patients from the need for close monitoring. How much did they say about the potential for an uncontrollable bleed? Eat your veggies! The "spendy" marketing campaign launched by Boehringer Ingleheim also promoted Pradaxa as a blood thinner that could add vegetables containing vitamin K back into the diets of people taking a blood thinner, a big plus for vegetable lovers. What Boehringer may have failed to say or say not often enough was if while using Pradaxa, you suffered a bleed; there might be no stopping it. A fall, bump in the head, or spontaneous bleed could mean death. An article published by the New York Times describes the experiences of a trauma surgeon in Houston. About one patient in particular he reportedly said "We pretty much threw the whole kitchen sink at him," . . . "But he still bled to death on the table." The quote continues, "You feel helpless," "And that's a very bad feeling for us." Marketing of the product has not appeared to slow despite the many Pradaxa lawsuits that nave been filed. BOULDER BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertisement ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Boulder Brands' fka Smart Balance and GFA Brands' Fat Free Enhanced Milks are not fat-free as advertised, a class action claims in Federal Court. CHICAGO BRIDGE: Has Yet to File Final Settlement Documents ---------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. has yet to submit documents with respect to its settlement of a consolidated merger-related lawsuits, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On February 13, 2013, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., a limited liability company (naamloze vennootschap) with corporate seat in Amsterdam, the Netherlands ("CB&I"), completed its previously announced acquisition of The Shaw Group Inc. ("Shaw") (the "Acquisition") pursuant to the transaction agreement (the "Transaction Agreement"), dated as of July 30, 2012, by and among Shaw, CB&I, and Crystal Acquisition Subsidiary Inc., a Louisiana corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of CB&I ("Acquisition Sub"). Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement, Acquisition Sub merged with and into Shaw, with Shaw surviving the Acquisition as a wholly owned subsidiary of CB&I. Following the Company's announcement of the signed Transaction Agreement, several shareholders filed purported class action lawsuits against Shaw, its directors, CB&I, and in some cases, against CB&I's acquisition subsidiary. On October 17, 2012, the actions were consolidated and on November 3, 2012, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The plaintiffs generally allege breach of fiduciary duties to Shaw shareholders because of, among other claims, inadequate consideration to be paid by CB&I for Shaw common stock and an allegedly flawed negotiation process. On November 27, 2012, Shaw and its directors filed peremptory exceptions seeking dismissal of the action and on November 30, 2012, CB&I likewise filed peremptory exceptions seeking dismissal. Also on November 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote on the transaction. The court set both the exceptions and the motion for temporary injunction for hearing on December 19, 2012. On December 13, 2012, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all claims against all defendants in the lawsuit. Under the terms of the MOU, the plaintiff class will release all claims against all defendants. In exchange, Shaw will make certain additional disclosures in a supplement to its definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and voluntarily waive or modify certain requirements under Louisiana law with respect to shareholders' dissenting rights, including waiving the requirement that dissenters rights are only available if the transaction is approved by less than eighty percent of Shaw's total voting power. The defendants have also agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs associated with pursuing their claims. The settlement is subject to submission of final settlement documents and court approval. CITICORP CREDIT: Arbitration Bid in "Brown" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill denied a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the second amended complaint in LISA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:12-cv-00062-BLW, (D. Idaho). Under the Federal Arbitration Act, there are legal grounds to revoke the arbitration agreement's waiver of Ms. Brown's right to bring a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action under the Idaho Wage Claims Act. Accordingly, the Court will deny Citicorp's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss Ms. Brown's claims, Judge Winmill said. A copy of the District Court's February 21, 2013 Memorandum Decision and Order is available at http://is.gd/nPXZIXfrom Leagle.com. CLECO CORP: Only One Matter Remains in Louisiana Customer Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The only matter remaining in a customer class action lawsuit is related to a ruling in Cleco Corporation's favor that it had properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas, Louisiana, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In March 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of three Cleco Power LLC customers in Opelousas, Louisiana. The complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco Power applies to all of its retail customers. The plaintiffs claim that Cleco Power owes customers in Opelousas more than $30.0 million as a result of the alleged overcharges. The plaintiffs allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) following hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Cleco Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a franchise granted to Cleco Power by the City of Opelousas in 1986 and an operating and franchise agreement dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities and leases and operates electric facilities owned by the City of Opelousas. In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are applicable to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no overcharges have been collected. In addition, Cleco Power removed the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric customers from the state court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in April 2010, so that it could be properly addressed under the terms of the Class Action Fairness Act. In May 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which was submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents. Cleco Power has responded in the same manner as with the first class action lawsuit. In September 2010, the federal court remanded both cases to the state court in which they were originally filed for further proceedings. In January 2011, the presiding judge in the state court proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff. Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of Louisiana (Third Circuit). In September 2011, the Third Circuit denied both appeals. In October 2011, both Cleco and the LPSC appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court. In November 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the appeals and remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further briefing, argument, and opinion. In February 2011, the administrative law judge (ALJ) in the LPSC proceeding ruled that the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class action plaintiffs. At its December 2011, Business and Executive Session, the LPSC adopted the ALJ's recommendation that Cleco be granted summary judgment in its declaratory action finding that Cleco's ratepayers in the City of Opelousas have been served under applicable rates and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco's Opelousas ratepayers have not been overcharged in connection with LPSC rates or ratemaking. On January 30, 2012, the class action plaintiffs filed their appeal of such LPSC decision to the 19th Judicial District Court for Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana. On February 15, 2012, the Third Circuit ruled that the State Court, and not the LPSC, has jurisdiction to hear the case. On March 15, 2012, Cleco Power appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court asking that it overturn the Third Circuit decision and conform the LPSC's exclusive jurisdiction over this matter. The LPSC also appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court in March 2012. On May 18, 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ application of Cleco Power and the LPSC and set the matter for further briefing on the merits of the jurisdiction question raised in the writ application. Such briefing was completed during the third quarter of 2012 and the Louisiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments on September 7, 2012. On December 4, 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its opinion accepting Cleco's jurisdictional arguments and dismissed the state court claims. The only matter remaining is before the 19th Judicial District Court to review the LPSC ruling in Cleco's favor that it had properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas. In view of the uncertainty of the claims, management is not able to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of liability, if any, of these claims. However, if it is found that Cleco Power overcharged customers resulting in a refund, any such refund could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows. Cleco Corporation is a regional energy company that conducts substantially all of its business operations through its two primary subsidiaries: (1) Cleco Power LLC, a regulated electric utility company, which owns 9 generating units with a total nameplate capacity of 2,524 MW and serves approximately 281,000 customers in Louisiana through its retail business and 10 communities across Louisiana and Mississippi through wholesale power contracts, and (2) Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, a wholesale energy business, which owns Cleco Evangeline LLC, which operates the Coughlin Power Station. CRUSADER SERVICING: Gets More Time to File Class Action Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lillian Shupe, writing for Hunterdon County Democrat, reports that the defendants in a class action suit regarding municipal tax lien certificates (TSCs) were granted an extension of time to file an answer to the consolidated complaint. A dozen New Jersey homeowners are now parties in a suit claiming that they were victims of the conspiracy. The homeowners were either facing foreclosure or had been foreclosed upon. Many of the more than two dozen defendants in the federal suit are among those pleading guilty to criminal charges. One defendant, Crusader Servicing Corp., purchased a lien in Lebanon Township. Earlier this year, the owner of that home was the first to file a class action suit in Superior Court in Hunterdon County. The suit was transferred to federal court and then consolidated with other suits like it. The consolidated complaint was filed in December. The defendants originally had until Feb. 19 to answer or file a motion to dismiss. The defendants now have until March 8 to answer or move to dismiss the complaint. Opposing attorneys would have until April 24 to respond to any motions to dismiss and reply briefs would have to be filed by May 22. In December a New Jersey company in the business of receiving the assignment of municipal tax liens was the latest to plead guilty for its role in the alleged conspiracy. The Department of Justice said that the conspiracy limited competition in public auctions for municipal tax liens so the liens could be purchased at higher interest rates, many at the maximum 18 percent interest rate. When the owner of real property fails to pay taxes on that property, the municipality in which the property is located may attach a lien for the amount of the unpaid taxes. If the taxes remain unpaid after a waiting period, the lien may be sold at auction. State law requires that investors bid on the interest rate delinquent homeowners will pay upon redemption. By law, the bid opens at 18 percent interest and, through a competitive bidding process, can be driven down to zero percent. If a lien remains unpaid after a certain period of time, the investor who purchased the lien may begin foreclosure proceedings against the property to which the lien is attached. According to the consolidated complaint, settlements have been offered to several homeowners but it does not say which ones or give any details. "Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are New Jersey taxpayers who became delinquent on their real property tax obligations, often as a result of disability and/or economic hardship. Because of the unlawful conspiracy, Class members either paid or owe Defendants an inflated amount in order to redeem their TSCs, and keep their home or other property from falling into the possession of one of the Defendants. Indeed, some class members have already lost their properties as a result of Defendants' illegal behavior," the complaint says. The tax lien auction process is meant to create "competitive bidding in an effort to try and help the delinquent tax payer who is already likely experiencing financial difficulty," the complaint says. Even in the absence of collusion, the lien process can often lead to harsh results for the property owner, the complaint says. Some of the defendants failed to pay a few hundred dollars in taxes and ended up owing the lien holder tens of thousands, according to the complaint. "The Defendants' conspiracy alleged herein acted to make it even more punitive by colluding and artificially raising the interest rate associated with the property owner's delinquent obligation. Quite simply, the defendants' conspiracy was akin to pouring salt in the wounds of plaintiffs and the members of the Class," the complaint says. The class action suit seeks to have the liens acquired through the alleged conspiracy forfeited by the purchasers and any properties that have been foreclosed upon returned to the owner plus other damages. According to the court documents, Crusader conspired with others not to bid against one another at municipal tax lien auctions in New Jersey. Because the conspiracy permitted the conspirators to purchase tax liens with limited competition, each conspirator was able to obtain liens which earned a higher interest rate. Property owners were therefore made to pay higher interest on their tax debts than they would have paid had their liens been purchased in open and honest competition. A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of $100 million criminal fine for corporations. The maximum fine for a Sherman Act violation may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims if either amount is greater than the statutory maximum. Crusader, two other companies and eight individuals -- Isadore H. May, Richard J. Pisciotta, Jr., William A. Collins, Robert W. Stein, David M. Farber, Robert E. Rothman, Stephen E. Hruby, and David Butler -- previously pleaded guilty as part of this investigation. EMPIRE STATE: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Feb. 22 disclosed that plaintiffs in the class action regarding the proposed consolidation of several real estate entities, including the entities that own and operate the Empire State Building, into a publicly traded real estate investment trust to be known as Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., are pleased to announce that the settlement of the class action has been granted preliminary court approval. The case, In re Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Investor Litigation, New York Supreme Court No. 650607/2012, was brought against the transaction's chief proponents, members of the Malkin family, certain affiliated companies, and the Estate of Leona Helmsley. The Court has scheduled a final approval hearing for May 2, 2013. The settlement will benefit investors in the entities subject to the consolidation in several ways. A settlement fund of $55 million will be established to pay monetary recoveries in accordance with a court-approved plan of allocation. In addition, the litigation was a material factor in a redesign of the transaction to permit investors to defer taxation. The lengthy process of discovery and negotiation also resulted in extensive supplemental information being disclosed to investors about the transaction, as well as a series of investor protections in connection with the REIT's anticipated initial public offering. Attorney Lawrence Kolker, of the firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, who serves as lead counsel to the plaintiff class, commented, "We are very pleased with the settlement, which represents, in our opinion, a substantial portion of recoverable damages and provides valuable tax options, disclosures, and protections to all of the affected investors." Pursuant to the court's order of preliminary approval, notice of the settlement will be mailed to investors in each of the subject entities in the near future. The notice will provide detailed information about the settlement and the plan of allocation. The notice will also be available at class counsel's Web sites below. Along with Wolf Haldenstein -- http://www.whafhclass.com-- three other firms served as class counsel who negotiated the terms of settlement: Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Haverford PA -- http://www.chimicles.com/-- Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York City - -- http://www.labaton.com-- and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, New York City -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com Contacts: Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Telephone: 212-545-4600 E-mail: kolker@whafh.com FIFTH THIRD: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification Denial -------------------------------------------------------------- Norwalk Reflector reports that Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A. won the reversal of an earlier Columbus federal district court decision which had denied class certification for small businesses against a major regional bank, Fifth Third Bank. Last week, the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that had denied certification of a proposed class of Fifth Third Bank business checking account holders that were charged improper "service" fees without providing notice, more than 15 days ahead of imposition. The class action was originally filed by Murray and Murray on Dec. 20, 2007 for about 300,000 business checking account customers who were charged non timely pre-identified "service" fees, and that many "service" fees were increased, also without the prior 15 day notification period. As one example, a "service" fee, which Fifth Third called a "Deposit Adjustment," was improperly deducted from account balances, for allegedly not adding up their deposits correctly, in a total amount estimated to be in excess of $5 million dollars. Fifth Third is an Ohio bank that conducts business in the following 12 states: Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The proposed class is represented by Murray and Murray of Sandusky, and Arlington Video Recording, a small business from Columbus. Dennis E. Murray, Sr. -- dms@murrayandmurray.com -- and Donna A. Evans, of Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., represent the class, continuing Murray & Murray's more than 50 years of dedication to protecting the rights of those who have been injured physically or financially through no fault of their own. Founded in 1931, Murray & Murray is owned and operated by the Murray family. The firm has fourteen attorneys including nine Murray partners. Located in Sandusky, Ohio, Murray & Murray provides legal representation for clients throughout the United States. Murray & Murray's focus areas are personal injury and consumer protection. FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Dismissal of Hawaii Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Beginning in December 1993, certain of Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s U.S. subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the Philippines involving claims by numerous non- U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against the Company's U.S. subsidiaries are pending or subject to appeal in Hawaii, Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines. In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of the Company's U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in Hawaii. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the action without ties to Hawaii. At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company's remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred. A final judgment dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is fully briefed and remains pending. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 28, 2012. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness and reliability since 1892. FRESH DEL MONTE: Fla. Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003. The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000. The Company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on October 12, 2006. On August 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. The Company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on January 22, 2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009. On November 29, 2011, the court denied the motion to certify a class action. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 28, 2012. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness and reliability since 1892. FRESH DEL MONTE: Still Defends Suits Over Extra Sweet Pineapples ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits over its Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 28, 2012. On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased (other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6, 2003. The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. On February 18, 2005, the Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged individual consumers separately filed putative class action complaints against the Company and its subsidiaries in the state court of California on behalf of residents of California who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003. On November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professional Code. On September 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. On August 20, 2009, the court denied class certification. On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying class certification. On February 29, 2012, the oral argument hearing on the appeal was held. On March 7, 2012, the appeal was rejected and the denial of class certification was upheld. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness and reliability since 1892. INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------ Virgil Dickson, writing for PRWeek, reports that a federal judge in California's central district has preliminarily approved the settlement terms of a class action lawsuit against Interpublic Group accusing the holding company of making employees work after hours without compensation. The holding company has agreed to pay $327,000 to compensate employees who said they were made to work at events after hours and without overtime pay or state-mandated breaks. The settlement will benefit employees at Rogers & Cowan, PMK-BMC, the Axis Agency, GolinHarris, and Weber Shandwick. JOHNS HOPKINS: Doctor's Patients File Privacy Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- WJZ reports that major legal action against the prestigious Johns Hopkins Hospital. Tens of millions of dollars of lawsuits have been filed by patients after their gynecologist is accused of secretly videotaping some of them. Meghan McCorkell spoke with one of patients who is suing. The first two lawsuits were filed against the hospital in court on Feb. 22 and many more are expected to come. Patient after patient of Dr. Nikita Levy -- in shock. The OB/GYN -- who worked at Johns Hopkins for 25 years -- is under investigation for secretly photographing and videotaping his patients. He took his own life earlier last week. "I even felt so comfortable with Dr. Levy that I referred my own mother to him," said Tyesha Bell. Tyesha Bell -- a patient for six years -- has now filed one of the first lawsuits against Dr. Levy's estate and the hospital. "I had no idea that this man was capable of doing such acts," she said. About 685 patients have signed on for another class action lawsuit against Johns Hopkins. Attorneys say the hospital did not do enough to protect its patients. "What did he do with these images? Did he put them on any site someplace? Did he sell them? Have they been disseminated?" asked attorney Jonathan Schochor. Investigators say Dr. Levy may have used a camera hidden inside his pen to tape some of his patients. That invasion has some paranoid about future doctor visits. "The number one question I'm going to ask is, 'Can I see your pen before we do an examination?'" Ms. Bell said. Johns Hopkins has released a statement, saying in part: "Any invasion of patient privacy is intolerable. Dr. Levy's behavior violates Johns Hopkins code of conduct and privacy policies and is against everything for which Johns Hopkins Medicine stands." Police are now sifting through what they call an extensive amount of evidence that was discovered inside Dr. Levy's home. Dr. Levy saw about 1,000 patients during his tenure at Johns Hopkins. Police have set up a hotline for patients as part of the criminal investigation. The number is 410-396-2269. LEGAL HELPERS: Faces Suit Over Failure to Perform Mortgage Change ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, American Platinum Financial Services, The Mortgage Law Group et al. took money but failed to perform mortgage modifications, a class action claims in King County Court. MCDONALD'S CORP: Majed Moughni Balks at Cy Pres Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Masnick, writing for Techdirt, reports that when Majed Moughni in Dearborn, Michigan, heard about such a class action settlement concerning McDonald's having sold non-halal Chicken McNuggets that were advertised as halal, he decided to protest the settlement and try to get others to do so. The settlement was what is known as a cy pres settlement, in which the lawyers get paid and the defendant agrees to give a chunk of money to charity, rather than to the class (about $700,000 in this case). There are, at times, good reasons for doing a cy pres award, but it can also be open to abuse. Settlement agreements, by law, have a period of time in which people are free to object to a settlement before it is approved, and Mr. Moughni was doing exactly that, if at times crudely, with a Facebook page that may have gone a bit far in its claims. Mr. Moughni was upset with the cy pres nature of the award, but also with the fact that there was no injunction that would block McDonald's from doing the same thing again. However, as Paul Levy, who is now representing Mr. Moughni, makes clear in a blog post about the motion he filed in the case, the court deciding to issue a broad injunction against Mr. Moughni, barring him from talking about the case, while also forcing him to post the lawyers' view of the case, would appear to be a pretty blatant First Amendment violation: "The lawyers for the plaintiff class threatened Moughni with both a defamation suit and disciplinary charges (Moughni is a lawyer, although not by any means a specialist in class actions). Moughni would not back down, so the plaintiff's lawyers asked the judge to shut down the page -- or, more precisely, they asked that Moughni be required to take everything he had said about the case down, and to post on his Facebook page instead what they said (and what the Court had said) (That is why I am not linking to my client's Facebook page -- it isn't really HIS page any more. Let the parties do their own publicity.) And, they asked that Moughni be forbidden to make any statements that class members might see or hear, such as by talking about the litigation to the press which, in turn, might print stories from which class members might learn Moughni's views." "The lawyers continued their claim that they had been defamed, but really, they said, this isn't about us, this is about protecting the poor class members against having their confidence in the lawyers undermined, protecting public confidence in the court system, and preventing class members from being confused about whether they should object to having their claims for damages extinguished so that settlement funds could go to the charities (and the lawyers). The judge held a hearing a few days later; plaintiff's counsel spoke his piece, McDonald's lawyers chimed in with their agreement, but Moughni's attempt to speak was rebuffed with a peremptory 'Don't you even' from the judge. And the judge ruled, granting the injunction almost exactly as requested." As Mr. Levy notes, with class action settlements there is strong incentive for the lawyers from both sides and the judge to get the settlement approved. It gets a case off the docket and gets the lawyers paid. So this is a situation where all three of those parties have the incentive to team up against anyone who dares to raise questions about the settlement. In fact, Mr. Levy noted that when he contacted the lawyers, noting his own intention to represent Moughni, they threatened him with sanction too. Mr. Levy notes that Moughni's original Facebook post may not have been as carefully worded as one would hope, but in no way should that ever lead to a broad injunction, along with compelling speech one disagrees with, in response. From the filing: "Giving Moughni only a few days' notice, the Court convened an emergency hearing; then, without hearing from Moughni, issued a prior restraint of unparalleled breadth, barring Moughni from making any public statements about an entire subject matter, even statements that were entirely truthful and not at all misleading. It further compelled him to place speech with which he fervently disagreed on his own web page; and it forbade him from dissemination, circulation or publication of any opt-out form or objection during the crucial ten-day period before the deadline for members of the class to decide whether to opt out or object. On a literal reading of the injunction, Moughni was barred even from speaking to his own wife and children about the settlement, and even from submitting an objection to the settlement on his own behalf." "While he was pro se, Moughni acknowledged that he is not an expert in class action procedure; as his counsel, we readily concede that some of his statements could have been worded more felicitously. But Moughni was not counsel for a named party; he spoke only as a member of the affected community, and the Court's order holding him to standards that would have been inappropriate even for a lawyer in the case violated black-letter law against prior restraints of speech. The injunction should, therefore, be vacated immediately. In addition, during the crucial ten-day period before the opt-out or objection deadline, the order deprived the class of the opportunity to hear dissenting views about whether to go along with a settlement that potentially deprives them of valuable rights. The Court should, therefore, reopen the period for the class to respond to the notice, and should defer any decision about approval of the settlement until that time has expired." Even if you agree that Mr. Moughni may have gone too far with some of his Facebook postings, completely denying his right to talk about and object to the settlement, while then forcing him to post information he disagreed with, seems like an egregious violation of his rights. As Mr. Levy notes back in his blog post, whether or not the actual settlement is a good one is somewhat besides the point: "Moughni has his own view, but our motion takes no position on the merits of the settlement: our only point is that Moughni ought to have the right to say what he thinks about the settlement, and that the remedy for speech claimed to be false is not less speech but more speech. In my own mind, I have come to no conclusion about the merits of the proposed settlement." "But that just leaves me wondering, if the settlement is so wonderful, why the lawyers felt they had to resort to suppressing critical speech instead of just putting their own replies into the marketplace of ideas. At the hearing for an injunction, they had reminded the Court of how attentive the national media press had been to their publicity about the settlement (115 national media outlets, and a hundred million viewers, they claimed); surely the media would continue to give them a platform." Hopefully the court is willing to recognize its mistake and vacate the injunction quickly. NETFLIX INC: Faces Class Action Over 25% Share Drop --------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Netflix stock dropped by 25% in a day after analysts questioned its cheerful, and inaccurate, growth predictions, shareholders claim in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff Martin Schulthes claims Netflix's share price dropped from $80.39 on July 24, 2012, to $60.28 per share the next day, after defendant CEO Reed Hastings' rosy outlook wilted under the heat of reality. Netflix correlates its revenue growth largely to subscriber growth, according to the complaint. In the first quarter of 2012, Netflix predicted it would add 7 million new subscribers for its domestic streaming segment by the end of the year, based on a growth trend that began in 2010. On July 3, 2012, Hastings announced on Facebook that "Netflix monthly viewing exceeded one billion hours for the first time ever in June," according to the complaint. "That announcement affirmed Hastings' statements of April 23, 2012 that the company was 'continuing to execute on all of the key dimensions' and 'everything was consistent with what we've been hoping for,' leading the market to believe that Netflix was on 'target for the year' to achieve the 7 million net additions in domestic subscribers," the complaint states. On July 5, Netflix stock surged to $81.72 per share on almost 15 million traded shares, a 13.4% increase from $72.04. But at least one analyst questioned the company's April 23 first-quarter earnings prediction. The analyst asked Hastings: "Why are you so confident that gross add trends result from seasonality and not slowing growth? How can you be confident in 7 million net additions for the year?" Hastings said he based his prediction on a "fantastic" first quarter of 2012, which added nearly 3 million subscribers. "We had strong results in all of our territories, including the U.S.," Hastings replied, according to the complaint. "Our gross ads are consistent with our historic patterns. Our churn is consistent with our historic patterns, and we're feeling very good about the year." On July 24, Netflix sent a letter to shareholders assuring them the company had "achieved financial performance in the top half of guidance in nearly every metric, and returned to profitability," according to the complaint. But many were not persuaded. "What was disconcerting to investors, however, was that the company had only 530,000 net subscription additions for its domestic streaming business, resulting in total domestic streaming subscriptions of 23.94 million," the complaint states. "The company also noted that it may not reach its target of adding 7 million domestic streaming subscribers by the end of the year." Stocks dropped from $80.39 on July 24 to $60.28 per share the next day. Schulthes claims Netflix misled investors: that Hastings and co- defendant CFO David Wells knew the company would report significantly lower growth than they had announced, that 7 million goal was not likely to be reached, that they "intentionally misrepresented the impact of the one billion hours of viewing on subscriber growth and those misrepresentations remained uncorrected during the class period." Schulthes seeks class damages for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. He is represented by Jorge Amador, with the Rosenfarb Law Firm, of New York City. The firm may be reached at: Jorge Amador, Esq. ROSENFARB LAW FIRM 825 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (855) 255-1100 E-mail: jorge.amador@rosenfarblawfirm.com A federal judge last week dismissed a shareholder derivative complaint, filed in November 2011, which claimed the company wasted assets by spending more than $1 billion buying back shares at inflated prices. NETSPEND HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that NetSpend Holdings is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Total System Services, for $16 a share or $1.4 billion, shareholders claim in Chancery Court. OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Defends Suit vs. Genaera Liquidating Trust -------------------------------------------------------------- Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit brought against the Genaera Liquidating Trust, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. In July 2012, the Company received notice that it was being named, along with 26 other parties, as a defendant in a class action lawsuit being brought against the Genaera Liquidating Trust. The Company purchased biotechnology assets from the Trust in 2009. The Company does not believe the allegations against the Company in the complaint have merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Recognizing that the outcome of litigation is uncertain, management believes that the litigation is unlikely to have a materially adverse impact to the Company's financial statements. PEPSI-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of New York stiffed delivery drivers and assistants for overtime and minimum wages, a class action claims in Federal Court. POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Poseidon Concepts, gas and oil storage, inflated the share price with false and misleading statements, then it sank from $13.10 to 28 cents per share in three months, shareholders claim in Federal Court. Rosen Law Firm Files Suit The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Feb. 23 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the stock of Poseidon Concepts Corp. during the period from May 9, 2012 to February 14, 2013 seeking to recover damages for violations of the federal securities laws. To join the Poseidon class action, visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against Poseidon and certain of its officers and directors for issuing materially false and misleading financial information. The Complaint asserts that Poseidon falsely overstated revenue and earnings by over 200% during the class period. The lawsuit asserts that this adverse information caused shareholders to lose nearly the entire value of the investment. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 24, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e- mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dismissal of Consumer Suit Reversed in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, a district court ruling dismissing the consumer class action lawsuit captioned RICHARD LORETO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; LARRY BUFFA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, No. 10-4274. Messrs. Richard Loreto and Larry Buffa appeal the district court's dismissal of their claims against Procter & Gamble for violation of various consumer-protection statutes. The class action involves the charge that Procter & Gamble was unjustly enriched and violated the consumer-protection laws of all fifty States when it sold and marketed two new products in 2009: DayQuil Plus Vitamin C and NyQuil Plus Vitamin C. According to plaintiffs, the company sought to exploit the commonly held, yet allegedly unfounded, belief that Vitamin C is effective for treating cold symptoms by adding the vitamin to its DayQuil and NyQuil products. The Sixth Circuit reversed the portion of the judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act predicated on Procter & Gamble's statement in its advertising that Vitamin C "won't cure a cold, but . . . can help blunt its effects." In all other respects, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. A copy of the Appeals Court's February 22, 2013 Decision is available at http://is.gd/s2eGPOfrom Leagle.com. SANDISK CORP: Briefing in SD Cards Suit Appeal to End by 2013 2Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Appellate briefing should be completed in the first half of 2013 in the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their class action lawsuit against SanDisk Corporation, et al., according to the Company's Feb. 19, 2013 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD- 3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of Secure Digital ("SD") cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law. The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct, dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed. Appellate briefing should be completed in the first half of 2013. SANDISK CORP: Discovery in "Ritz" Class Action Suit Now Open ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is now open in the class action lawsuit brought by Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, according to SanDisk Corporation's Feb. 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2012. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging SanDisk violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006, through the present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the portion of the District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District Court. Discovery is now open in the District Court. STRAYER EDUCATION: Dismissal of "Kinnett" Suit Upheld in Dec. ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld in December 2012 the dismissal of the securities lawsuit titled Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc., et al., according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On October 15, 2010, a putative securities class action styled Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On March 20, 2012, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal on December 13, 2012. On April 4, 2011, a shareholder derivative action alleging similar facts was filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, which action was voluntarily dismissed by nonsuit on June 12, 2012. TOYOTA MOTOR: Vehicle Owners Invited to Join Acceleration Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Lane, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that thousands of Mississippi Toyota owners and lessors should receive a postcard in the mail between now and mid-April inviting them to be part of a class-action lawsuit against the company. The lawsuit relates to allegations of unintended acceleration in some vehicles and the alleged concealing of safety issues. Restitution for consumers affected by recalls or safety issues in Mississippi has no limit but is expected to be up to $5 million, depending on the number of applicants, said Jan Schaefer, spokeswoman for the Mississippi attorney general's office. Owners or lessors of 26 Toyota models, 12 Lexus models and three Scion models manufactured in different time ranges between 1998 and 2010 are included in the class-action suit. Toyota has already agreed to pay the state of Mississippi $561,288 to aid in litigation and other fees relating to the suit as part of a legal settlement, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood said. The state funds are part of a $29 million settlement between Toyota and 29 other states. These funds will be used for costs of investigation and litigation or be placed into the consumer protection law enforcement fund. Mississippi received just more than half a million dollars based on the state's population. Those who qualify for the suit will need to be able to document the expenses incurred in getting their recalled vehicle repaired, such as rental car expenses, Ms. Schaefer said. The total number of Mississippians affected by recalls or defects is unknown, but the attorney general's office confirmed a reported 32,755 vehicles in the state were involved in a floor mat safety recall. The models included in the settlement are those sold in the United States or Puerto Rico that were equipped with what's called an electronic throttle control system. The company maintains that stuck accelerator pedals, faulty floor mats and driver error are the reasons for vehicles unexpectedly surging, while plaintiffs' attorneys contend Toyota's electronic throttle control system is to blame. TREX CO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Mold Growth in Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Trex Company, Inc. continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits related to mold growth in its products, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP, on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs, and on June 13, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in the Marion Circuit/Superior Court of Indiana by Cohen & Malad on behalf of Ellen Kopetsky and similarly situated plaintiffs. On June 28, 2011, the Company removed the Kopetsky case to the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana. On August 11, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in the 50th Circuit Court for the County of Chippewa, Michigan, on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers and similarly situated plaintiffs. On August 26, 2011, the Company removed the Peffers case to the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan. On April 4, 2012, a purported class action was commenced against the Company in Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County on behalf of Caryn Borger, M.D. and similarly situated plaintiffs. On May 1, 2012, the Company removed the Borger case to the United States District Court, District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs in these purported class actions generally allege certain defects in the Company's products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth. The Company believes that the claims relating to mold growth are without merit and denies all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged. However, the Company is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation. During the three months ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded $1.5 million to expense related to these claims. It is reasonably possible that the Company may incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the Company expects that the total net cost to resolve the lawsuit will not exceed $10 million. Trex Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of wood-alternative decking and railing products, which are marketed under the brand name Trex(R). The Company is incorporated in Delaware. The principal executive offices are located at 160 Exeter Drive, Winchester, Virginia 22603. TREX CO: Mold Claims in Defective Products Suit Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced against Trex Company, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms on behalf of Eric Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs. These plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products. On February 13, 2009, the Company removed this case to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On January 21, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced against the Company in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington by the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on behalf of Mark Okano and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain product defects in the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products. This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's case. On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement. On April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final. On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth. The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original complaint. In its Final Order approving the surface flaking settlement, the District Court consolidated these pending actions relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens Berman Firm as lead counsel in this case. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company believes that the claims relating to mold growth are without merit and denies all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged. However, the Company is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation. During the three months ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded $1.5 million to expense related to these claims. It is reasonably possible that the Company may incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the Company expects that the total net cost to resolve the lawsuit will not exceed $10 million. Trex Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of wood-alternative decking and railing products, which are marketed under the brand name Trex(R). The Company is incorporated in Delaware. The principal executive offices are located at 160 Exeter Drive, Winchester, Virginia 22603. WAL-MART STORES: Nichols Kaster Files Gender Bias Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Nichols Kaster, PLLP on Feb. 22 disclosed that it filed a class action complaint against the giant retailer on behalf of five Wisconsin women in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin last week. The complaint -- Ladik, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Case No. 3:13-cv-00123-bbc), -- alleges that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. discriminated against female employees in retail stores throughout its Region 14, which includes stores in parts of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs seek an end to Wal-Mart's discriminatory practices regarding the pay and promotion of female employees in stores throughout the region as alleged in the complaint. Ladik, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the fifth regional discrimination case lodged against Wal-Mart since the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2011 reversed a lower court ruling on the national class action against the retailer and issued new guidelines for class actions and Title VII Civil Rights Act employment discrimination cases. In October 2011, two regional complaints were filed -- Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Case No. 3:01-cv- 02252-CRB), and Odle, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas (Case No 3:2011-cv-02954). In October 2012, another two regional complaints were filed including Phipps, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville (Case No. 3:2012-cv-01009) and Love, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 0:12-cv-61959). While the California case, Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is proceeding, "we hope that this case provides a venue for Wal-Mart to have to address the merits of their treatment of women in the workplace outside California," said Jim Kaster of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. While other non-California courts have been troubled by the issue of whether a class can be timely filed based on allegations going back to the beginning of the Dukes case, we believe that persuasive authority in the Seventh Circuit will allow tolling. The named plaintiffs in the Region 14 case are Sandra Ladik, of Montello, Wisconsin, employed by Wal-Mart for approximately 14 years; Penny Perkins, of Rock County, Wisconsin, employed by Wal- Mart for approximately 11 years; Jackie Goebel of Kenosha County, Wisconsin, a Wal-Mart employee since 1988; Marie Coggins of Rock County, Wisconsin, employed by Wal-Mart for approximately 14 years, over three separate time periods; and Sondra Steeb-Lamb of Sauk County, Wisconsin, employed by Wal-Mart for approximately 8 years. As alleged in the complaint, women at Wal-Mart were told by management that women deserved less pay and fewer promotions than men because men had families to support. As alleged in the complaint, evidence in the case shows that female employees of Wal-Mart retail stores, excluding Pharmacists and Managers at Store Manager level and above, were denied equal opportunities for promotion, and equal pay. The class action asserts that Wal-Mart fosters a work environment that actively discriminates against women and management has failed to take action to prevent gender disparities. These practices permeated stores throughout the region. "Wal-Mart has been successful in making technical legal arguments preventing courts from reaching the merits of womens' claims, and we expect more of these arguments here. Nevertheless, we hope that the court in Wisconsin will, after this long period of waiting, finally allow their claims to be heard by a jury," said Jim Kaster of Nichols Kaster, PLLP. For more information contact Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492, or visit http://www.walmartclass.com Ladik, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Case No. 3:13-cv-00123- bbc) Plaintiffs are represented by Nichols Kaster, PLLP of Minneapolis, MN, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC of Washington, D.C., and the Impact Fund of Berkley, CA. WEYERHAEUSER CO: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Weyerhaeuser Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On April 25, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of a person alleged to be a participant in the Company's U.S. Retirement Plan for salaried employees. The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) with respect to the management of the plan's assets and seeks certification as a class action. The Company believes that its pension plans have been consistently managed in full compliance with established fiduciary standards and is vigorously contesting the claim. The Company is seeking to have the case dismissed. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Product Liability Lawsuits Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending against numerous lawsuits pending in federal and state courts in the United States and various jurisdictions in Canada relating to certain of the Company's front load washing machines. Some of these lawsuits have been certified for treatment as class actions. The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege violations of state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty. The complaints generally seek unspecified compensatory, consequential and punitive damages. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending them. Given the preliminary stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, at this time. The resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. In addition, the Company is currently defending a number of other lawsuits in federal and state courts in the United States related to the manufacturing and sale of its products which include class action allegations. These lawsuits allege claims which include breach of contract, breach of warranty, product defect, fraud, violation of federal and state consumer protection acts and negligence. The Company does not have insurance coverage for class action lawsuits. The Company is also involved in various other legal actions arising in the normal course of business, for which insurance coverage may or may not be available depending on the nature of the action. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company disputes the merits of these lawsuits and actions, and intends to vigorously defend them. Management believes, based upon its current knowledge, after taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such lawsuits and actions, and after taking into account current litigation accruals, that the outcome of these matters currently pending against Whirlpool should not have a material adverse effect, if any, on the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settles Direct Purchasers' Claims in Embraco Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Whirlpool Corporation's compressor business headquartered in Brazil entered into a settlement agreement with direct purchaser plaintiffs in the combined antitrust lawsuit pending in Michigan, according to the Company's February 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Beginning in February 2009, the Company's compressor business headquartered in Brazil ("Embraco") was notified of investigations of the global compressor industry by government authorities in various jurisdictions. In 2012, Embraco sales represented approximately 8% of the Company's global net sales. Government authorities in Brazil, Europe, the United States, and other jurisdictions have entered into agreements with Embraco and concluded their investigations of the Company. In connection with these agreements, Embraco has acknowledged violations of antitrust law with respect to the sale of compressors at various times from 2004 through 2007 and agreed to pay fines or settlement payments. Since the government investigations commenced in February 2009, Embraco has been named as a defendant in related antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in connection with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to 2009. Several other compressor manufacturers who are the subject of the government investigations have also been named as defendants in the antitrust lawsuits. United States federal lawsuits instituted on behalf of purported "direct" and "indirect" purchasers and containing class action allegations have been combined in one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Other lawsuits are also pending and additional lawsuits may be filed by purported purchasers. On February 12, 2013, Embraco entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs representing a proposed settlement class of direct purchasers of compressors in the Michigan Lawsuit. The settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval, provides for, among other things, the payment by Embraco of up to $30 million in exchange for a release by all settlement class members. The settlement agreement does not cover any claims by direct purchasers that opt out of the proposed settlement class and the settlement amount will be reduced if there are opt-outs. The settlement agreement does not cover claims by "indirect purchaser" plaintiffs in the Michigan Lawsuit, which remain pending. In connection with these agreements and other Embraco antitrust matters, the Company has incurred, in the aggregate, charges of approximately $357 million, including fines, defense costs and other expenses. These charges have been recorded within interest and sundry income (expense). At December 31, 2012, $111 million remains accrued, with installment payments of $73 million, plus interest, remaining to be made to government authorities at various times through 2015. The Company says it continues to work toward resolution of ongoing government actions in other jurisdictions, to defend the related antitrust lawsuits and to take other steps to minimize its potential exposure. The final outcome and impact of these matters, and any related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. The Company establishes accruals only for those matters where it determines that a loss is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While it is currently not possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of costs which the Company may incur in connection with these matters, such costs could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity, or results of operations. WYNDHAM VACATION: Couple Files Class Action Over Timeshares Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Finney, writing for 7 On You Side, reports that a retired couple claims a well-known vacation company tricked them into signing up for expensive timeshares. Thomas and Donna Crook of Chico enjoy their vacations at San Francisco's Wyndham Canterbury Hotel. They bought a timeshare for a room there four years ago. "I like it very much because it's centrally located, it has nice amenities," said Mr. Crook. However, the couple is also very troubled. They claim they were tricked into buying more timeshares for the resort and it's put them deep into debt. "They said we owed $96,000. I was shocked!" said Mrs. Crook. Attorneys for the retired couple have filed a class action lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court against Wyndham Vacation Ownership. The suit claims Wyndham salespeople were targeting senior citizens, using deceptive practices to sell timeshares they couldn't afford. "The abuse towards the elderly people. I feel them, I loved them," said Patricia Williams. Ms. Williams is a former salesperson at the San Francisco resort. She claims she was fired for blowing the whistle on fraudulent sales. And she isn't the only one. Ms. Williams and four other employees filed wrongful termination lawsuits in San Francisco Superior Court claiming they were forced out for complaining about fraud. "I did report it and I was told to keep my mouth shut or I would be fired," said Marty Whitney, a former Wyndham employee. Ms. Whitney is one of the former employees in the wrongful termination suits. She said she was shocked to find sales people tricking Donna, Thomas, and other seniors into signing contracts for more timeshares. They say sales people preyed on the elderly who were easily overwhelmed and confused by complicated documents and fine print. "When people would come in, they didn't know what they were signing and I was told as long as they could walk in, be on a walker, be in a wheelchair, it really didn't matter," said Ms. Whitney. Mr. and Mrs. Crook were invited to listen to sales seminars when they checked in. The hotel gave them $100 or a meal in exchange. They say they got in trouble during these sales pitches. "I never really understood what was happening," said Mr. Crook. According to the lawsuit, in July 2010, a sales person told the couple they could qualify for a lower interest rate on their loan. There were so many papers and legal terminology the couple said they didn't read all of the papers or understand what they signed. Only later they realized they'd actually purchased more timeshares, worth another $30,000. "I was kind of lost because they went through it so fast," said Mr. Crook. When they complained, another sales person told them Wyndham would guarantee to buy back those points after 11 months if they upgraded to a higher level called "presidential reserve". So the Crooks agreed to invest another $49,000. However the lawsuit says, 11 months later, Wyndham rejected their request to buy back those shares. It turns out there was no guarantee to buy back points, only Wyndham's right to purchase them. "And I'm the one that had to tell the Cooks that no, after 11 months, they won't get their money back and they will never get it back," said Ms. Whitney. 7 On You Side contacted Wyndham Vacation Ownership for a response to these claims. The company reclined to go on camera to discuss the wrongful termination case or the fraud suit. It said it does not comment on pending litigation. However, Wyndham provided a statement saying: "Treating our employees, owners and guests properly is one of our core values, and we engage in extensive efforts to create a healthy and enriching workplace for our employees, and Dan enjoyable buying experience for our owners. Consequently, we are disappointed to learn of this filing. People of all ages and backgrounds love to vacation and the diversity of our more than 800,000 owners reflects the wide appeal of our products." Mr. and Mrs. Crook now owe $95,000 on their timeshare loan, plus $500 a month in maintenance fees. They had to borrow on their Chico home to keep up the payments. "They made it sound beautiful and we would get our money back. But after all of this, no we won't," said Mrs. Crook. The California Department of Real Estate requires timeshare companies to give you seven days to cancel a contract. They also must file a report with the state on exactly what the timeshare offers. However, Mr. and Mrs. Cook said they didn't even know they had purchased more shares until they were billed weeks later. The lesson here is do not sign a timeshare contract until you review it thoroughly and you might want to have an attorney review it as well. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Revise Order in Suit v. Union Carbide ------------------------------------------------------------------ In an order dated Feb. 12, 2013, Judge James S. Moody, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied Plaintiffs Mark Flomenhoft and Linda Flomenthoft's motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motion for withdrawal of counsel for Defendant Union Carbide Corporation. In their Motion for Reconsideration, the Plaintiffs argued that withdrawal of UCC's counsel, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, will cause delay of the proceeding in their asbestos exposure action. Judge Moody said that would not be the case because the case management and scheduling order of the action is already in place. The case is MARK FLOMENHOFT and LINDA FLOMENHOFT, Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC and UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 8:12-cv-2496-T-30AEP (M.D. Fla.). A copy of Judge Moody's Decision is available at http://is.gd/5FMf5yfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates Warned of Abusive Litigation Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------- A magistrate judge in a federal court in Colorado warned several inmates at the Fremont Correctional Facility to cease their inappropriate filings in their action alleging constitutional violation arising from asbestos exposure. In an order dated Feb. 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland of the United States District Court for the District Colorado denied several motions filed by the inmates, including motion for appointment of counsel, motion for appointment of experts, and motion for leave to amend complaint, after determining that these motions are premature, frivolous, redundant and meritless. Citing the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Magistrate Judge Boland said, "[t]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, and there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious. No one, rich or poor, is entitled to abuse the judicial system." The case is JAMES TEMPLETON, FRANK POWELL, DAVID ALLEN, DAVID COWDEN, SHANNON SMITH, ROBERT GALLOB, and ROBERT C. ROWE, Plaintiffs, v. PETER ANDERSON, BRIAN BRADEN, JEFF SMITH, JAMES CHANEY, TIMOTHY CREANY, JAN SYLVIA, STEVEN GALLEGOS, LANCE JOHNSON, CARL WOJCIECHOWSKI, CHERI DRENNON, STEPHEN ENGLE, and THOMAS MARTIN, Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-cv-01276-RBJ-BNB (D. Colo.). A copy of Magistrate Judge Boland's Decision is available at http://is.gd/vbLocbfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln's Appeal From Ex-Worker's Judgment Junked ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an order dated Feb. 14, 2013, affirmed judgment entered April 13, 2011, awarding the Estate of Robert E. Wolfinger the sum of $952,281 for damages caused by Decedent, Robert F. Wolfinger's, exposure to respirable asbestos fibers contained in The Lincoln Electric Company's welding rods. Lincoln appealed and asked the Superior Court to determine whether the trial court committed prejudicial error: (1) in failing to exclude testimony from the Plaintiff's proffered liability expert and failing to grant a judgment n.o.v. or a new trial in response to Lincoln's post-trial motions; (2) in precluding all evidence regarding the Plaintiff's applications to bankruptcy trusts and failing to grant a new trial in response to Lincoln's post-trial motions; (3) in permitting the case to be tried in a reverse-bifurcated manner or then refusing to empanel a new jury in the Phase 2 proceedings. With respect to the first issue, the Superior Court held that the testimony of the Plaintiff's liability expert was rightfully accepted as evidence because it established substantial factor causation of Decedent's illness and death from exposure to Lincoln products. The testimony was also supported by other evidence, which was considered by the jury to determine if Decedent's exposure to respirable asbestos fibers from Lincoln's welding rods over time was a substantial factor in causing Decedent's illness, the Superior Court said. Accordingly, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Plaintiffs' liability expert's deposition testimony to the jury and the trial court did not err in refusing to grant Lincoln a new trial on these grounds. With respect to the second issue, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit reference to the Decedent's applications to bankruptcy trusts. The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that the Estate did not open the door by presenting a portion of Decedent's deposition that referenced some of the products from bankrupt companies. "[Decedent] merely gave an occupational history in order to establish a timeline of exposure to the Lincoln welding rods," the Superior Court said, citing the trial court's ruling. With respect to the third issue, the Superior Court noted that it has rejected similar arguments challenging the reverse bifurcation procedure. Similarly, in this case, the Superior Court rejected Lincoln's arguments holding that the record does not support Lincoln's assertion that the jury in this case was actually confused, misled or prejudiced. Accordingly, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Lincoln's objection to the reverse bifurcation procedure employed in this case or denying a new trial on this ground. The case is MICHELLE WOLFINGER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT F. WOLFINGER Appellee, v. 20TH CENTURY GLOVE CORPORATION OF TEXAS, ET AL., APPEAL OF: THE LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant, No. 1393 EDA 2011 (Pa. Super. Ct.). A copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/oOsx5vfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment For CBS & Crane Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Ellen N. Whiting appeals from a December 2011 Superior Court order granting summary judgment for Defendants CBS Corporation and Crane Company. The Plaintiff filed the action alleging that her husband suffered from malignant mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos and products of the defendants during his service in the engine and boiler rooms aboard the U.S.S. Guadalcanal. In a memorandum and order dated Feb. 14, 2013, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the Superior Court's judgment after finding that the Defendants have demonstrated that there is no evidence that Whiting's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos products manufactured or later supplied by the defendants, and have shown that the plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of her case. The case is ELLEN N. WHITING, vs. CBS CORPORATION & another, No. 12-P-329 (Mass.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/SbhLrKfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. Ct. Dismisses Inmate's Pro Se Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Lewis T. Babcock, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado entered on Feb. 14, 2013, an order of dismissal in the case captioned DARRELL K. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HICKENLOOPER, TOM CLEMENTS, REA TIMME, DAVID TESSLER, JOHN V. BUGLEWICZ, M.D., JAY A. RICHTER, M.D., MIKE STIEHL, ALANO MAYES, RODNEY ACHEN, DANIEL BRATINA, JOHN DOE #1, and JOHN DOE #2, Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-cv-02097- BNB (D. Colo.). The Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections, filed a pro se complaint alleging constitutional violations, including his exposure to unsafe conditions such as airborne friable asbestos, cockroaches, and rodents, while incarcerated. In the Order of Dismissal, Judge Babcock found that Mr. Scott has not presented his claims in a manageable format that allows the Court and Defendants to know with certainty what claims are being asserted against which defendants so that they are able to respond to those claims. The general rule that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally has limits and the Court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant's attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record, Judge Babcock said, citing Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)). A full-text copy of Judge Babcock's Decision is available at http://is.gd/GoT9Emfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Junks Exposure Suit v. Tishman -------------------------------------------------------- In the asbestos personal injury action titled JEFFREY A. ZAYAS and SUSAN ZAYAS, Plaintiff, v. A.C. & S., INC., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 119115/02, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y.), Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint filed by defendant Tishman Liquidating Corporation, Inc. The defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence that it directed, supervised or controlled any of Mr. Zayas' work or that it supervised the other trades that are alleged to have caused Mr. Zayas' injuries. Judge Heitler agreed, adding that the Plaintiffs' position that Tishman knew or should have known that asbestos-containing products were being used at the post office site is also unsupported by the record. A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order dated Feb. 13, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/pH6t1Cfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $602MM Liability at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation had $602 million asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims at December 31, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the Corporation's products. The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. At December 31, 2012, the Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $602 million ($668 million at December 31, 2011) and the Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability was $25 million ($40 million at December 31, 2011). At December 31, 2012, the Corporation also had receivables of $154 million ($178 million at December 31, 2011) for insurance recoveries for defense and resolution costs. Claims unresolved at December 31, 2012, were 33,449. Union Carbide's receivables for asbestos-related costs was $179 million at December 31, 2012. The Corporation's receivables related to its asbestos-related liability was $179 million at December 31, 2012. The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $100 million in 2012, $88 million in 2011 and $73 million in 2010, and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of operations. Management believes that it is reasonably possible that the cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on the Corporation's consolidated financial statements. A full-text copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at: http://is.gd/MeBA4q Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company that has been a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company since 2001. ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Paid $15MM in Settlements in 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel paid approximately $15 million in settlements related to asbestos litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. These settlements and other dispositions resolved approximately 190 claims. New case filings in 2012 added approximately 285 claims. At December 31, 2012, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 790 active cases involving approximately 3,330 plaintiffs. As of December 31, 2011, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 695 active cases involving approximately 3,235 plaintiffs. About 2,560, or approximately 77 percent, of these claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against the Company will likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. Most of the claims filed in 2012, 2011 and 2010 involve individual or small groups of claimants. In general, the only insurance available to U. S. Steel with respect to asbestos claims is excess casualty insurance, which has multi-million dollar self-insured retentions. To date, U. S. Steel has received minimal payments under these policies relating to asbestos claims. Historically, approximately 89 percent of the cases against U. S. Steel did not specify any damage amount or stated that the damages sought exceeded the amount required to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed. U.S. Steel noted that jurisdictional amounts generally range from $25,000 to $75,000. The Company added that it does not consider the amount of damages alleged, if any, in a complaint to be relevant in assessing its potential exposure to asbestos liabilities. U. S. Steel aggressively pursues grounds for its dismissal from pending cases and litigates cases to verdict where it believes litigation is appropriate. The Company also makes efforts to settle appropriate cases, especially mesothelioma cases, for reasonable, and frequently nominal, amounts. A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at: http://is.gd/L3O4Qa U. S. Steel is an integrated steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products with major production operations in North America and Europe. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Continues to Defend Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- NewMarket Corporation continues to defend lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The Company is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits that involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple defendants. NewMarket stated that it maintains an accrual for these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected insurance recoveries. NewMarket noted that the accrual for its premises asbestos liability related to currently asserted claims is based on these assumptions and factors: * NewMarket is often one of many defendants. This factor influences both the number of claims settled against the Company and also the indemnity cost associated with such resolutions. * The estimated percent of claimants in each case that will actually, after discovery, make a claim against NewMarket, out of the total number of claimants in a case, is based on a level consistent with past experience and current trends. * NewMarket utilizes average comparable plaintiff cost history as the basis for estimating pending premises asbestos related claims. These claims are filed by both former contractors' employees and former employees who worked at past and present company locations. NewMarket also include an estimated inflation factor in the calculation. * No estimate is made for unasserted claims. * The estimated recoveries from insurance and Albemarle Corporation for these cases are based on, and are consistent with, the 2005 settlement agreements with Travelers Indemnity Company. The Company states: "Based on these assumptions, NewMarket has provided an undiscounted liability related to premises asbestos claims of $11 million at both December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The liabilities related to asbestos claims are included in accrued expenses (current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these costs are recoverable through our insurance coverage and agreement with Albemarle Corporation. "The receivable for these recoveries related to premises asbestos liabilities was $8 million at December 31, 2012 and $7 million at December 31, 2011. These receivables are included in trade and other accounts receivable, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the current portion. The noncurrent portion is included in other assets and deferred charges." NewMarket Corporation is a holding company and is the parent company of Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton), Ethyl Corporation (Ethyl), NewMarket Services Corporation (NewMarket Services), and NewMarket Development Corporation (NewMarket Development). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Expects to Spend $480MM in 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. expects its cash spending for asbestos claims to be approximately $480 million and its cash receipts for related insurance recoveries to be approximately $44 million in 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies, Honeywell is a defendant in personal injury actions related to asbestos. We did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did we make or sell insulation products or other construction materials that have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vast majority of claimants. "Honeywell's predecessors owned North American Refractories Company (NARCO) from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products (bricks and cement used in high temperature applications). We sold the NARCO business in 1986 and agreed to indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all other claims. NARCO and/or Honeywell are defendants in asbestos personal injury cases asserting claims based upon alleged exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing products. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing refractory products in an occupational setting. These claims, and the filing of subsequent claims, have been stayed continuously since January 4, 2002, the date on which NARCO sought bankruptcy protection. "Honeywell's Bendix friction materials (Bendix) business manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements." NARCO and Bendix's asbestos-related liabilities total $1,772 million at December 31, 2012, while their insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities total $707 million. A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at: http://is.gd/f0K44X Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 23,141 Bendix-Related Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. had 23,141 unresolved Bendix-related asbestos claims at December 31, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. Honeywell reported that the number of Bendix-related claims resolved in 2012, which totals 3,350 claims -- includes approximately 288 claims previously classified as inactive (85% non-malignant and accrued liability of approximately $1.3 million) which were activated during 2012. Claims unresolved at December 31, 2012, total 23,141. Of the total unresolved claims, 5,367 are Mesothelioma and Other Cancer Claims while 17,774 are Nonmalignant Claims. The Company states: "It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for Bendix related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize in the future. "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix related asbestos claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter each year. "The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated cost of future Bendix related asbestos claims is based on historic claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims is similar to that used to estimate the future NARCO related asbestos claims liability. "Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and reserves to cover all pending Bendix related asbestos claims and Bendix related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the next five years." Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Asserts Coverage on NARCO Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- In 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company ("Travelers") filed a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York against Honeywell International Inc. and other insurance carriers that provide coverage for North American Refractories Company (NARCO) asbestos claims, seeking a declaration regarding coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and the other insurance carriers. The Company states: "The other insurance carriers asserted cross claims against Honeywell seeking declarations regarding their coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by them. Since then, the Company has entered into settlement agreements resolving all NARCO-related asbestos coverage issues with almost all of these insurance carriers, including Travelers. Honeywell believes it is entitled to the remaining coverage at issue. While Honeywell expects to prevail in this matter, an adverse outcome is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or operating cash flows." No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 45,900 Claims Pending at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation, as of December 31, 2012, had pending approximately 45,900 asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos- containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships. Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had pending approximately 45,900 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 50,090 as of December 31, 2011 and 52,220 as of December 31, 2010. During 2012, the Company received approximately 4,350 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 8,540 claims. The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2012 and 2011 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately $21 million and $33 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses. Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos- related disease. The predominant number of claims against the Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed injury. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities. CBS Corporation operates businesses which span the media and entertainment industries, including the CBS Television Network, cable program services, television content production and distribution, motion pictures, publishing, radio stations, television stations, interactive businesses, and outdoor advertising. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated is currently involved in approximately 9,800 cases (approximately 37,500 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos, aside from the asbestos litigation related to Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) each own 50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC). Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were approximately 11,800 claims pending against Corning in state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of one million dollars per claim. Corning has defended those claims on the basis of the separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's asbestos products. Corning is also currently involved in approximately 9,800 other cases (approximately 37,500 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos and similar amounts of monetary damages per case. Those cases have been covered by insurance without material impact to Corning to date. As of December 31, 2012, Corning had received for these cases approximately $18.6 million in insurance payments related to those claims. Several of Corning's insurance carriers have filed a legal proceeding concerning the extent of any insurance coverage for past and future defense and indemnity costs for these claims. Asbestos litigation is inherently difficult, and past trends in resolving these claims may not be indicators of future outcomes. Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the concerns and objections of the relevant courts and parties. In 2003, a plan was agreed to by various parties (the 2003 Plan), but, on December 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying the confirmation of that 2003 Plan. On January 29, 2009, an amended plan of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) -- which addressed the issues raised by the Court when it denied confirmation of the 2003 Plan -- was filed with the Bankruptcy Court. The proposed resolution of PCC asbestos claims under the Amended PCC Plan would have required Corning to contribute its equity interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation, and to contribute a fixed series of payments, recorded at present value. Corning would have had the option to use its shares rather than cash to make these payments, but the liability would have been fixed by dollar value and not the number of shares. The Amended PCC Plan would, originally, have required Corning to make (1) one payment of $100 million one year from the date the Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and certain conditions are met and (2) five additional payments of $50 million, on each of the five subsequent anniversaries of the first payment, the final payment of which is subject to reduction based on the application of credits under certain circumstances. Documents were filed with the Bankruptcy Court further modifying the Amended PCC Plan by reducing Corning's initial payment by $30 million and reducing its second and fourth payments by $15 million each. In return, Corning would relinquish its claim for reimbursement of its payments and contributions under the Amended PCC Plan from the insurance carriers involved in the bankruptcy proceeding with certain exceptions. On June 16, 2011, the Court entered an Order denying confirmation of the Amended PCC Plan. The Court's memorandum opinion accompanying the order rejected some objections to the Amended PCC Plan and made suggestions regarding modifications to the Amended PCC Plan that would allow the Plan to be confirmed. Corning and other parties have filed a motion for reconsideration, objecting to certain points of this Order. Certain parties to the proceeding filed specific Plan modifications in response to the Court's opinion and Corning supported these filings. Certain parties objected to the proposed Plan modifications and, to resolve some of those objections, further revisions to the Plan and other documents were filed. A modified Amended PCC Plan was then submitted by PCC, and objections to that Plan were filed by two parties. Those objections and the Plan are pending before the Court. The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain non-PCC asbestos claims that may be or have been raised against Corning. Corning has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation liability an additional $150 million for the approximately 9,800 current non- PCC cases alleging injuries from asbestos, and for any future non- PCC cases. The liability for non-PCC claims was estimated based upon industry data for asbestos claims since Corning does not have recent claim history due to the injunction issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The estimated liability represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees over the next 20 years. The amount may need to be adjusted in future periods as more data becomes available. The Amended PCC Plan with the modifications addressing issues raised by the Court's June 16, 2011 opinion remains subject to a number of contingencies. Payment of the amounts required to fund the Amended PCC Plan from insurance and other sources are subject to a number of conditions that may not be achieved. The approval of the (further modified) Amended PCC Plan by the Bankruptcy Court is not certain and faces objections by some parties. If the modified Amended PCC Plan is approved by the Bankruptcy Court, that approval will be subject to appeal. For these and other reasons, Corning's liability for these asbestos matters may be subject to changes in subsequent quarters. The estimate of the cost of resolving the non-PCC asbestos claims may also be subject to change as developments occur. Management continues to believe that the likelihood of the uncertainties surrounding these proceedings causing a material adverse impact to Corning's financial statements is remote. Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under insurance policies, including rights that may be affected by the potential resolutions. Corning is vigorously contesting these cases. Management is unable to predict the outcome of this insurance litigation and therefore cannot estimate the range of any possible loss. Corning Incorporated is a manufacturer of specialty glass and ceramics. Drawing on more than 160 years of materials science and process engineering knowledge, Corning creates and makes keystone components that enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Estimates $671MM Liability End Dec. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated's asbestos litigation liability was estimated to be $671 million at December 31, 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The Company states: "In 2012, we recorded an increase to our asbestos litigation liability of $14 million compared to an increase of $24 million in 2011. In 2010, we recorded a net decrease to our asbestos litigation liability of $49 million. The net decrease in 2010 was due primarily to a $54 million decrease to our estimated liability for asbestos litigation that was recorded in the first quarter of 2010, as a result of the change in terms of the proposed settlement of the PCC asbestos claims. For the remainder of 2010, we recorded net credit adjustments to our asbestos litigation liability of $5 million to reflect the change in value of the estimated settlement liability. "Our asbestos litigation liability was estimated to be $671 million at December 31, 2012, compared with an estimate of $657 million at December 31, 2011. The entire obligation is classified as a non-current liability as installment payments for the cash portion of the obligation are not planned to commence until more than 12 months after the proposed Amended PCC Plan is ultimately effective, and a portion of the obligation will be fulfilled through the direct contribution of Corning's investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current other equity method investment)." Corning Incorporated is a manufacturer of specialty glass and ceramics. Drawing on more than 160 years of materials science and process engineering knowledge, Corning creates and makes keystone components that enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Had 2,600 Claims Pending End Dec. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois, Inc., had 2,600 asbestos-related claims pending at the end of 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seeks compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts. 2012 2011 2010 ---- ---- ---- Pending at beginning of year 4,600 5,900 6,900 Disposed 4,400 4,500 4,200 Filed 2,400 3,200 3,200 Pending at end of year 2,600 4,600 5,900 Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2012, approximately 66% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. Approximately 30% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of $15 million or less, and 4% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but less than $100 million. Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages equal to or greater than $100 million. Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages. The Company's experience resolving hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff's asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made, and the plaintiff's medical history and exposure to other disease-causing agents. In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and they are not included in the description of pending matters or in the following description of disposed matters. Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of December 31, 2012, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 391,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of approximately $8,400. Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over a number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $24 million at December 31, 2012 ($18 million at December 31, 2011) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. The Company's asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. A part of the Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in the Company's administrative claims handling agreements has generally reduced the number of marginal or suspect claims that would otherwise have been received. In addition, certain courts and legislatures have reduced or eliminated the number of marginal or suspect claims that the Company otherwise would have received. These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the Company's per- claim average indemnity payment over time. The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability (i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.3 billion through 2012, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos- related liability. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate its liability has been significantly affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns, the expanding list of non-traditional defendants that have been sued in this litigation, and the use of mass litigation screenings to generate large numbers of claims by parties who allege exposure to asbestos dust but have no present physical asbestos impairment. The Company's reported results of operations for 2012 were materially affected by the $155 million fourth quarter charge for asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to be substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise materially affect the Company's results of operations for the period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has affected and may continue to affect the Company's cost of borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short- term and long-term basis. Owens-Illinois, Inc., is a manufacturer of glass containers. It competes in the glass container segment of the rigid packaging market and is the leading glass container manufacturer in most of the countries where it is located. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From Owens-Illinois Judgment Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ An appeal from a judgment in favor of Owens-Illinois, Inc., in an asbestos-related case is pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. On March 11, 2011, the Company received a verdict in an asbestos case in which conspiracy claims had been asserted against the Company. Of the total nearly $90 million awarded by the jury against the four defendants in the case, almost $10 million in compensatory damages were assessed against all four defendants, and $40 million in punitive damages were assessed against the Company. On August 31, 2012, the trial judge who presided over the original trial vacated all of the damages awarded against the Company in the trial and entered judgment in the Company's favor. The plaintiff has appealed the trial judge's ruling to an intermediate appellate court, and while the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this appeal, the Company believes that the trial judge ruled appropriately based upon applicable appellate precedent. Owens-Illinois, Inc., is a manufacturer of glass containers. It competes in the glass container segment of the rigid packaging market and is the leading glass container manufacturer in most of the countries where it is located. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Awaits Order on Consolidation Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on a motion to consolidate mesothelioma claims in Maryland, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. A prominent Baltimore plaintiffs' firm recently filed a motion in Maryland to consolidate for trial more than 13,000 non mesothelioma claims (the "Motion"). The plaintiffs' proposal is to consolidate these cases for trial on "common issues" and then have "mini trials" on damages. Most of these cases are currently on an inactive docket. The initial hearing on the Motion to consolidate was in December 2012 but no ruling was issued at that time. The Company cannot predict whether or not the Motion will be granted and, if so, the number, timing or format of any trial or the costs that might be required to litigate or resolve cases subject to the Motion. If the Motion is granted, then a substantial number of these previously inactive cases may be activated against the Company. Owens-Illinois, Inc., is a manufacturer of glass containers. It competes in the glass container segment of the rigid packaging market and is the leading glass container manufacturer in most of the countries where it is located. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Has 1,080 Unresolved Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation had 1,080 unresolved asbestos exposures cases at the end of 2012, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 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 have 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. 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. Rarely do the complaints in these cases state the amount of damages being sought. 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 nineteen- 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. "Certain information about cases for which service has been received that we have tendered to the prior owner, all of which have been accepted. Year ended Year ended Year ended December 31, December 31, December 31, 2012 2011 2010 ------------ ------------ ------------ Unresolved at beginning of period 1,080 1,116 1,138 Tendered during period 3 10 24 Resolved during period 3 46 46 Unresolved at end of period 1,080 1,080 1,116 "The Company stated that it has never made any payments with respect to these cases. As of December 31, 2012, Huntsman has an accrued liability of approximately $10 million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of approximately $10 million relating to its indemnity protection with respect to these cases. "However, Huntsman cannot assure its shareholders that its liability will not exceed its accruals or that its liability associated with these cases would not be material to its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of its accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against Huntsman in the future, and such claims could be material. However, because the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such claims, it has made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of December 31, 2012. "Certain cases in which Huntsman is a premises defendant are not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However, the Company may be entitled to insurance or other recoveries in some of these cases. Cases include all cases for which Huntsman has received service. Certain prior cases that were filed in error against the Company have been dismissed. Year ended Year ended Year ended December 31, December 31, December 31, 2012 2011 2010 ------------ ------------ ------------ Unresolved at beginning of period 36 37 39 Filed during period 21 11 5 Resolved during period 7 12 7 Unresolved at end of period 50 36 37 "We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that are not subject to indemnification of $559,000, $584,000 and $201,000 during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. As of December 31, 2012, we had no accrual relating 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 December 31, 2012." Huntsman Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a global manufacturer of differentiated organic chemical products and of inorganic chemical products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Had 141 Pending Cases at Nov. 30 --------------------------------------------------------- GenCorp Inc. had 141 asbestos cases pending as of November 30, 2012, according to Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2012. The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and Pennsylvania. There were 141 asbestos cases pending as of November 30, 2012. Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued for such contingencies. In 2011, Aerojet received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet subsidiary, for Aerojet to assume the defense of twenty-one asbestos cases, involving 264 plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana and reimbursement of over $1.0 million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre- closing liabilities, and Aerojet agreed to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet declined to accept the liability and requested additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the demand. Accordingly, no estimate of liability has been accrued for this matter as of November 30, 2012. Year Ended ---------------------- 2012 2011 2010 ---------------------- (Dollars in thousands) Claims filed 19*** 28** 27* Claims consolidated -- -- -- Claims dismissed 21 20 15 Claims settled 3 3 5 Claims pending 141 146 141 Aggregate settlement costs $53 $70 $105 Average settlement costs $18 $23 $21 * This number is net of six cases tendered to a third party under a contractual indemnity obligation. ** This number is net of one case tendered to a third party under a contractual indemnity obligation. *** This number is net of two cases tendered to a third party under a contractual indemnity obligation. Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for fiscal 2012, 2011 and 2010 were $0.4 million for all years presented. GenCorp Inc. is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of our excess real estate assets. The Company develops and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range weapon systems applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 73,200 Pending Claims End Dec. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company reported approximately 73,200 claimants at December 31, 2012 relating to asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The Company states: "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 105,600 claims by defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled approximately $407 million through December 31, 2012 and $388 million through December 31, 2011. "Because claims are often filed and disposed of by dismissal or settlement in large numbers, the amount and timing of settlements and the number of open claims during a particular period can fluctuate significantly. (Dollars in millions) 2012 2011 2010 --------------------------- Pending claims, beginning of year 78,500 83,700 90,200 New claims filed during the year 2,200 2,200 1,700 Claims settled/dismissed during the year (7,500) (7,400) (8,200) Pending claims, end of year 73,200 78,500 83,700 Payments $18 $23 $26 "Payments represents amount spent by the Company and its insurers on asbestos litigation defense and claim resolution. "We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $139 million and $138 million at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The recorded liability represents our estimated liability over the next ten years, which represents the period over which the liability can be reasonably estimated. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future could result in an increase in the recorded obligation in an amount that cannot be reasonably estimated, and that increase could be significant. The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims and related defense costs was $68 million at December 31, 2012 and $64 million at December 31, 2011. At December 31, 2012, our liability with respect to asserted claims and related defense costs was $71 million, compared to $74 million at December 31, 2011. "We maintain primary insurance coverage under coverage-in-place agreements, and also have excess liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a particular recovery. "We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $73 million at December 31, 2012 and $67 million at December 31, 2011. We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance through the period covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $10 million was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at December 31, 2012 and $8 million at December 31, 2011. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our excess coverage insurance carriers. "We believe that, at December 31, 2012, we had approximately $160 million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis, pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements at December 31, 2012." The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation organized in 1898, develops, manufactures, markets and distributes tires for most applications and rubber-related chemicals for various applications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural Units Defends 76 Active Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend 76 active asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The Company states: "The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and/or The Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Company have been named defendants in 489 actions brought from 1986 to date by former seamen in which the plaintiffs claim damages under federal law for illnesses in varying levels of severity allegedly suffered as the result of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers while serving as crew members aboard the vessels previously owned or managed by our entities until the mid-1980s. All of these actions have been consolidated into multidistrict proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, along with approximately 30,000 other cases from various jurisdictions throughout the United States that were filed by seamen against ship-owners and other defendants. Through a series of court orders, the docket has been reduced to approximately 3,500 active cases, of which we are a named defendant in 76. These cases are in the discovery phase. The court has dismissed the remainder of the cases without prejudice. Those dismissed cases could be reinstated upon application by plaintiffs' counsel. The claims against our entities are insured in amounts that vary by policy year; however, the manner in which these retentions will be applied remains uncertain. Our entities continue to vigorously contest these claims and have made no settlements on them." Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is a major global iron ore producer and a significant producer of high- and low-volatile metallurgical coal. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carlisle Companies Incorporated continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured in limited amounts between the late-1940's and the mid-1980's. In addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek punitive damages. Generally, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company maintains insurance coverage that applies to the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements or judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits. On December 22, 2010, the Company settled a case involving alleged asbestos-related injury. The total amount of the award and related loss, inclusive of insurance recoveries, was approximately $5.9 million, which was recorded in discontinued operations in the fourth quarter of 2010, as the related alleged asbestos-containing product was manufactured by the Company's former on-highway brake business. At this time, the amount of reasonably possible additional asbestos claims, if any, is not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or operating cash flows although these matters could result in the Company being subject to monetary damages, costs or expenses, and charges against earnings in particular periods. Carlisle Companies Incorporated is a holding company for Carlisle Corporation. Carlisle is a diversified manufacturing company consisting of five segments which manufacture and distribute a broad range of products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Workers Defenseless Against Fibro Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stretching from World War II until the late 1970's, members of the U.S. military, particularly the naval branch, were among those most affected by asbestos exposure. Asbestos was widely used for insulation purposes on a number of navy ships including aircraft carriers, destroyers, and transport vessels. Asbestos was used because of its remarkable strength, its fire resistant abilities, and its capacity to withstand massive amounts of heat. Since there was an abundance of heat-producing equipment aboard, asbestos was the perfect solution to alleviate the risk of potential fires in case of a malfunction or an attack. During World War II asbestos helped the US military manufacture ships quickly, efficiently, and at a low cost. What the government and citizens didn't realize were the dangers and health risks connected to asbestos exposure. Asbestos manufacturing companies knew of the hazards, but withheld the information from the government and sold the asbestos-containing products anyway. Everyone onboard was exposed to asbestos. Once asbestos is damaged in any way it's easily breakable or 'friable.' The tight spaces and lack of proper ventilation left all naval personnel defenseless against the millions of asbestos fibers released into the air. However, some occupations were exposed more than others including: boiler workers, pipefitters, insulators, plumbers, welders, electricians, machinists, and engineers. Asbestos was mainly used in the boiler and engine rooms. However, it was also used to insulate piping systems which were found and exposed throughout the entire ship including the galley and the sleeping quarters. Additionally, those who were involved with repairing navy vessels in shipyards were also exposed to asbestos. These individuals were constantly exposed due to the high concentrations of asbestos fibers in damaged and war-torn ships. Statistics show that military personnel, including shipyard workers, who served during the 1940's to the late 1970's are at a higher risk of developing mesothelioma than any other occupation. Many of the ships that contained asbestos during World War II were still in service throughout the 1970's. Removing asbestos from discontinued vessels put workers and veterans at risk since parts of the ships were often sold or used in other military branches, which again lead to additional asbestos exposure. Asbestos doesn't expire. In fact, it gets worse with age. If you're a veteran or know of any veteran's who have been exposed to asbestos and have an asbestos related disease such as mesothelioma, legal help is available to receive compensation for your medical bills and emotional strain. Contact an attorney today to know your options. If you or a family member has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos related disease due to exposure during your military service or on the job, you may have grounds for a legal claim. The Chicago mesothelioma lawyers of Cooney and Conway can provide you with a free consultation to discuss your case. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 Schools in Arizona Non-Compliant With EPA Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Six school districts in Arizona have done compliance work to avoid hefty federal fines for asbestos violations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined the school districts a combined total of nearly $95,000. More than 15,000 children attend the 25 schools not in compliance in the six districts -- three in Apache County, two in Pinal County and one on the Fort Apache reservation. EPA officials say all of the school districts have since taken necessary actions to comply with the federal asbestos law and the cost of compliance reduces the penalties in most cases to zero. During inspections in 2011, EPA inspectors say they discovered numerous violations in the school districts. Violations included failing to inspect and then re-inspect facilities for asbestos containing materials and not having a management plan. ASBESTOS UPDATE: IARC Calls For Ban to All Forms of Fibro --------------------------------------------------------- Chris Placitella at Mesotheliomalegalblog.com relates that a common defense employed in most mesothelioma trials is that chrysotile asbestos does not cause mesothelioma. This position is once again rebuffed by the IARC. The International Agency for Research on Cancer calls for end to use of all forms of asbestos. In a Joint Statement, released on Feb. 19, 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) state that all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans and that the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos- related diseases is to stop the use of all forms of asbestos. In a letter of Dec. 13, 2012, scientists and public health defenders around the world expressed concerns that IARC (an agency of the WHO) was participating in a sham scientific conference in Kiev, organized by asbestos promoters to try to prevent chrysotile asbestos being put on the Rotterdam Convention's list of hazardous substances at the upcoming May 2013 Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention. The scientists and public health defenders also expressed their concern that, in its presentation at the Kiev conference, IARC used outdated and inaccurate information regarding chrysotile asbestos that minimized the harm it causes to health. They also expressed concern that IARC is collaborating in a study on chrysotile asbestos with a discredited institute in Russia and with discredited scientists, who promote use of chrysotile asbestos and deny that it is hazardous to health. This Joint Statement from the WHO and IARC exposes the deadly deception of the campaign being waged by the asbestos industry to prevent chrysotile asbestos from being put on the Rotterdam Convention's list of hazardous substances as the dangerous, as the Convention's expert scientific committee has repeatedly recommended. The other issues raised by the scientists and public health defenders have not yet been addressed by IARC and continue to be of concern. Joint WHO/IARC Statement: In response to allegations in the recent Lancet article, IARC in the dock over ties with asbestos industry (The Lancet, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60152-X), WHO (World Health Organization) and IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) state the following: All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans (IARC Monographs Volume 100C) and stopping the use of all forms of asbestos is the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases (WHO Fact Sheet No 343). The study on cancer in chrysotile workers in Asbest, Russian Federation, for which IARC is providing its epidemiological expertise, will supply important scientific information to better quantify the risk of cancers already known to be related to chrysotile as well as additional cancers suspected to be related to chrysotile, the asbestos fiber is the most commonly produced. WHO and IARC take conflict of interest seriously and use a rigorous process to protect our research and development of norms, standards and guidelines from undue influence. IARC confirms the completeness and accuracy of all data and statements of scientific results published in the British Journal of Cancer (Estimating the asbestos-related lung cancer burden from mesothelioma mortality, doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.563) and presented at a conference in Kiev. IARC, as WHO's cancer research agency, remains committed to providing the most reliable, independent scientific evidence on which public health decisions can be based. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Schools at Liverpool Central up for Abatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Moses at Syracuse.com reports that Liverpool Elementary School and Liverpool Middle School in the Liverpool Central School District in New York closed for asbestos removal. The abatement requires that contractor employees wear protective clothing and follow appropriate procedures. District officials said they expect both schools to reopen on schedule Thursday morning (Feb. 21). Students, teachers and staff members will not be allowed in the building until air samples are acceptable according to the New York State Department of Labor's requirements. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Faces Breach of Contract Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fair of Law360 reports that Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. has sued Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. over the insurer's refusal to provide future coverage for asbestos-related claims under policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s, according to a suit removed to Pennsylvania federal court on Feb. 18. According to the suit originally filed in state court, Goodyear claims that the insurance giant breached its contract by backing out of its commitment to cover defense and indemnity costs beyond Jan. 28, 2013. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uganda Orders the Removal of Fibro From Schools ---------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Sekanjako and Moses Walubiri of Uganda's leading daily, NewVision, report that parliament has ordered the government to phase out the use of asbestos sheets as roofing materials in all schools and technical colleges to avert the health and safety hazards associated with its usage. Debating a report of The Committee on Science and Technology on the status of science and technology in Ugandan colleges on Tuesday, Feb.19, MPs recommended that government replaces all asbestos roofing in educational institutions and replace them with iron sheets that are health friendly. According to committee Vice Chairperson Kafeero Ssekitoleko, most of the Technical colleges that the committee visited were still roofed with asbestos. "During one of our visits, the Principal of Uganda Technical College (UTC) Lira Charles Ojilong told us that a staff member of the college died after using water harvested off an asbestos roof. His eyes swelled and shortly afterwards developed complications and died," Kafeero told MPs Tuesday. The MPs suggested that government allocates a specific amount of money in the national budget for the abolition of asbestos cement sheets in the entire country. "Kyambogo University still has rooms roofed with asbestos. There should be a special budget for the eradication and use of these sheets in the country," said Beatrice Anywar, Kitgum woman MP. Mbale municipality MP Jack Wamai Wamanga added; "Asbestos was abolished long time ago but it is everywhere in technical schools. We should ban it because it is very dangerous to this country." The World Health Organization has in the past banned the use of asbestos sheets due to diseases like cancer that are associated with the sheets. The report further indicated that most of the colleges had obsolete equipment that was not in conformity with the modern technologies currently being used in the market place. In its other report on the status of science and technology in public universities, the committee recommended that government increases funding towards science teaching in secondary schools through construction of laboratories and provision of requisite equipment like chemicals and reagents. Both reports were adopted by the Parliament on Tuesday. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge to Hear Libby Attorney's Fee Appeal March 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that attorneys for asbestos victims in a Montana mining town are seeking more than $4 million in fees and expenses out of a legal settlement with chemical company W.R. Grace that was intended to cover the victims' ongoing medical costs. State District Judge James Wheelis has ordered a March 1 fairness hearing on the request, recently submitted by a group of lawyers who said they sunk more than 16,000 hours of work into the case over 11 years. Last year's settlement followed decades of asbestos exposure from a Grace mine outside the town of Libby that so far has killed an estimated 400 people and sickened more than 2,000. Asbestos dust from the mine once blanketed the town, and contaminated mine waste was widely used by residents and local officials in construction projects, as a soil supplement in home gardens and for other purposes. In documents submitted to the court, the plaintiffs' attorneys described their fee request as reasonable given the time and effort they put into lawsuits filed against Grace. It equals about 20 percent of the $19.6 million that Maryland- based Grace last year agreed to put into a trust fund set up to help Libby residents cover medical expenses. Total costs and fees requested topped $5 million, but almost $1 million of that amount would be returned for the benefit of the victims, according to documents filed by the attorneys. The attorneys said they were entitled to up to 40 percent of their client's share of the settlement under their retainer contracts, but opted for a lesser percentage that would come from all qualifying victims and not just the attorneys' clients. The attorneys are from three law firms: McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan and McGarvey P.C. of Kalispell; Lewis, Slovak, Kovachich and Marr P.C. of Great Falls; and Murtha Cullina LLP, which has offices in multiple locations. A separate legal settlement between Libby victims and the state of Montana to cover damages for failing to intervene sooner included $14 million in attorney fees. The medical trust fund set up with the Grace settlement funds has enough money to last about five years, said trust administrator and Missoula attorney Nancy Gibson. Yet because of the long latency period for asbestos-related diseases, it could be many years before some people diagnosed in Libby develop medical complications. That means the trust could be depleted by the time some people need it, although Gibson said still-pending litigation involving Libby could result in more money coming in the future. "We're looking at stretching it out as long as funds are there to keep coverage in place," she said. "Hopefully there will be other funds that supplement this." The trust money is being used to cover the victims' premiums for Medicare or comparable private insurance policies, Gibson said. Some victims have complained that the attorneys' fees are too high, taking money that would otherwise go to helping victims. "These lawyers want and want and want," said Michael Crill, a former Libby resident now living in Missoula who was not a plaintiff in the case but indicated he was a trust beneficiary. Crill added in a letter to Judge Wheelis that the trust was the only means to pay for the medical care keeping him alive. But Gibson said the fee request was not out of line given the time and effort the attorneys put into the case. She added the attorneys have been working unpaid to persuade Medicare administrators to forgive money owed to the government by some victims. W.R. Grace previously covered the medical expenses that have been assumed by the trust, costing the company about $2 million annually since 2000, soon after the scope of Libby's contamination was revealed. A subsequent cleanup of the town and surrounding areas by the Environmental Protection Agency has cost more than $447 million to date and is expected to last at least several more years. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCI Probes ACPMA for Anti-Competitive Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Economic Times (New Delhi) reports that the Competition Commission is probing alleged cartelization in the market for asbestos cement sheets, which is mainly used in rural areas for low cost houses and warehouses. The fair trade regulator has said that various factors including high concentration in the market, product homogeneity and "active association of manufacturers" led to the decision of investigating anti-competitive practices in that industry. Competition Commission of India's investigation arm -- Director General (DG) -- is looking into the matter. "The role of the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) is under scanner for facilitating the cartel and controlling production volumes and sale prices. "The Commission has taken suo motu cognizance of alleged anti- competitive conduct of ACPMA," CCI said in its latest quarterly newsletter. It noted that asbestos cement sheets are widely used for roofs in low cost houses, sheds and warehouses. "The market of asbestos cement sheets consists of 20 big firms and 68 manufacturing units, of which top six players hold 87 per cent of the market share," CCI added. It said the probe was triggered after a reference from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). CCI keeps a tab on anti competitive practices across sectors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Pleas for Info on Swanton Hazmat Dumping ------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Reed of WNWO Today reports that the Ohio EPA has put out a plea for help identifying the group responsible for illegally dumping asbestos on a property near Swanton last fall. A large quantity of pipe insulation containing asbestos was discovered in November 2012 at an unoccupied residence on Stateline Road, just west of Nature Conservancy property. The Ohio EPA says the insulation was most likely used on a heating system pipe and that it may have been removed or stolen from a building by thieves looking for scrap metal. Asbestos is highly regulated by the agency due to the serious health problems associated with inhaling the material's fibers. Investigators believe someone may have seen trucks entering the property to dump the material or may know of a building where scrappers removed heating and air conditioning pipes. Anyone with information is encouraged to call Rick Hassinger at Ohio EPA's Northwest District Office in Bowling Green at (419) 352-8461 or (800) 686-6930. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Cites Six AZ Districts for AHERA Breaches -------------------------------------------------------------- The White Mountain Online reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has fined six Arizona school districts a combined total of $94,575 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) violations. More than 15,000 children attend the 25 schools not in compliance with the federal AHERA in these districts. During inspections conducted in 2011, EPA inspectors discovered numerous violations, from failing to inspect facilities for asbestos containing materials, failing to re-inspect campuses with known asbestos containing materials, and failing to have an Asbestos Management Plan. All of the school districts have since taken necessary actions to comply with the law, with the cost of compliance reducing the penalties in most cases to zero. "Asbestos in schools has the potential to harm the health of students, teachers, and maintenance workers," said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA's Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. "EPA takes these violations seriously, and we are satisfied the schools have now conducted inspections and put their asbestos plans in place." Each school district is allowed to subtract properly documented costs of complying with the regulations from the penalty amount. The six school districts are: -- Apache Junction Unified School District (Pinal County): fined $21,675, but this was reduced to $7,933 because of the school district's cost of achieving compliance. -- St. John's Unified School District (Apache County): fined $14,195, reduced to $824 by the school district's cost of achieving compliance. -- Florence Unified School District (Pinal County): fined $31,705, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty. -- Vernon Elementary School District (Apache County): fined $2,700, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty. -- McNary Elementary School District (Fort Apache Indian Reservation): fined $14,200, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty. -- Round Valley Unified School District (Apache County): fined $10,100, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty. Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing building material is present and develop a management plan to address the asbestos materials found in the school buildings. Schools are also required to appoint a designated person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure compliance with federal regulations. Finally, schools must conduct periodic surveillance and re-inspections of asbestos-containing building material, properly train the maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records in the management plan. Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the management plan in its administrative office and at the school which must be made available for inspection by parents, teachers, and the general public. For more information about federal asbestos regulations visit: http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/lawsregs.html. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Review Suggests Reopening Safe Areas of Cwmcarn ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Campaign Series News (UK) reports that a review into Cwmcarn High School has recommended sealing off part of the school to allow the rest to reopen. A report issued by independent asbestos surveyor Ensafe says that following a review and an inspection of the school, it was found that the decision by the council to close the school was "understandable" but not supported by any airborne fiber testing sample results. The report states that it is clear that parts of the school were built with "significant" quantities of asbestos containing products particularly within the school's A block building. Previous investigations said that asbestos debris was sitting on non-asbestos ceiling tiles in the block as well as in one area leading to the science block. The report said that without further testing, it is possible to say that there is a "foreseeable risk" of a ceiling tile breaking and releasing material containing asbestos and airborne asbestos fibers in some areas of the school. But the report states that if this risk does exist, it is not clear that the risk is so high it warrants the closure of the whole site, as these areas are confined to specific rooms in the A block. The surveyor has said that a licensed asbestos contractor should immediately seal off the main parts of the two-storey A block from the rest of the school site. The report also says that when this is done: "the other areas of the school outside the sealed zone should be immediately returned to normal usage with the pre-existing management controls for the known asbestos containing material (ACM) locations maintained." It continues that the work could be carried out quickly and simply and would allow the school to be returned to normal usage having been subjected to a revised management survey while further surveys and site investigations are conducted in the sealed areas of the school if necessary. Temporary classrooms would be installed as necessary. The report concludes by adding that while there is compelling evidence to indicate that it would be "perfectly safe" to re-open the entire school, this precautionary approach is recommended. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumbarton Middle School Completes Minor Abatement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Meoli for The Baltimore Sun reports that signs warning of asbestos contamination at Dumbarton Middle School in Towson appeared last week and set off some concern from students and parents. However, school spokesman Charles Herndon said the signs were precautions taken in advance of minor renovations scheduled Feb. 22. Dumbarton Middle School Assistant Principal Chuck Bolger said a sink will be replaced in a second-floor custodial workroom, and that a small number of tiles that contain asbestos and were laid when the school opened in then 1950s must be removed. "Because of that, we were just told that we have to inform everyone that the building has to be closed during that time," Bolger said. "(The contractors) put the signs up. We don't." Herndon said the floor tiles contain non-friable asbestos -- meaning it does not appear in the atmosphere unless disturbed. "It's not anything that would typically be in that atmosphere, but any time you're dealing with materials that contain asbestos that could become friable...you have to take precautions involved in asbestos abatement," Herndon said. One of those precautions, he said, involved posting the signs throughout the school. Herndon said the work would begin late Friday afternoon (Feb. 22) and was expected to be completed Saturday, Feb. 23. "None of the work is going to take place when children are in the classroom," Herndon said. "My understanding is it'll all be done over the weekend and it doesn't even involve any classroom space, or where students would normally be anyway." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Capricorn Coast Warned of After-Storm Fibro ------------------------------------------------------------ Trish Bowman of The Morning Bulletin (Aus) reports that asbestos flew through the air during recent storms that swept through the Capricorn Coast, and Yeppoon resident Derel Wust is asking the community to be aware of the dangers. Mr. Wust has a home in the Cooee Bay area situated close to numerous older-style homes with asbestos roofs and guttering. This has never been an issue until recent strong wind gusts ripped sheeting from a nearby house, sending asbestos missiles through the air. "We had asbestos guttering and roof sheeting strewn around our yard, causing some damage to paving and trimmings, but more worrying are the health concerns relating to the damaged materials," Mr. Wust said. "We have a lot of homes on the Coast with asbestos building materials, which is fine when it is kept in good condition, but not so fine when it is left in disrepair. "Add to the mix major winds in cyclonic conditions and it becomes a real problem." Mr. Wust said the letting agent for the damaged neighboring property had repairs and professional asbestos removalists deal with the immediate problem. "I think it is vital that people understand the seriousness of health concerns related to un-maintained asbestos," Mr. Wust said. "You simply can't be negligent when it comes to asbestos. "I believe buildings with asbestos should be part of a register to be able to appropriately maintain and manage problem areas." Darren Ireland from Darren's Asbestos Removal has been in the business of asbestos removal for 31 years, and he agreed that unmaintained asbestos could have dramatic health repercussions if not handled in the correct manner. Mr. Ireland said it was important that all asbestos repairs or removals be done by a qualified technician to prevent exposure to possible health hazards. "Asbestos should be in good condition and it must be sealed appropriately," Mr. Ireland said. "In the case of fallen asbestos, the contaminated material needs to be sprayed, wrapped in 200UM plastic and disposed of by a qualified and registered technician. "Soil around the contaminated area to a depth of 100mm must also be removed. "Our technicians wear full safety clothing and transport contaminants in a specially registered vehicle. "They have medical check-ups every six months." Mr. Ireland said rental properties with asbestos building materials would soon come under the same legislation as commercial buildings. "From August 2013 all rental properties will require an asbestos report and any problem areas will need to be rectified within a month," he said. "I believe the more stringent regulations will offer a better level of safety for the community, including those who currently underestimate the ramifications of handling contaminated materials. Asbestos Facts Not everyone exposed to asbestos fibers will contract an asbestos- related disease. In fact, the chances are low with a single exposure. The risk increases with the number of exposures and with higher concentrations of fibers. Asbestos can cause health problems when fibers become airborne and are inhaled. Once inside the lungs, most asbestos fibers are removed by the body's natural defenses. However, some fibers can become trapped in the lungs. In some individuals, this can result in serious lung diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma that may develop years later (typically a 10- to 40- year latency period). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Voters Decide Guilford Central Abatement Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Faher of The BrattleBoro Reformer reports that voters soon will decide whether a contractor should remove asbestos from Guilford Central School. School Board members will ask Town Meeting voters for approval of a special article granting permission to spend $18,167 for the asbestos project in fiscal year 2014. That would be the first installment of a three-year loan aimed at getting rid of the potentially hazardous construction material. "The whole project would happen this summer, but we would pay it back over three years," board member Penny Lussier said. Officials have long known that there is asbestos in some areas of the central school, which houses students from kindergarten through eighth grade. Last summer, Principal John Gagnon wrote a letter to parents advising that there is asbestos "located in some of the pipe wrapping as well as ceiling tiles in the intermediate/middle school hallway and the middle school classrooms." He added that school officials had been following an "EPA-approved and monitored regimen to make sure the asbestos does not pose a threat to students and staff." There was some question as to whether the material should be removed or whether it was better to leave it alone. But a closer look at estimated removal costs led board members to pursue the project. The price tag "didn't end up being nearly what some had feared," said Dan Systo, board chairman. "We felt as a board, for the money they were talking about, it was best to remove it." Officials have said the project's price tag will not exceed $50,000. And there is some cushion built into that budget: Systo estimated that final costs could be significantly lower than that, possibly totaling around $35,000. Catamount Environmental Inc. of Wilmington submitted a low bid of $24,850 for asbestos removal, board members said. There will be additional costs for items such as portable storage, new ceiling tiles, pipe insulation and additional manpower for cleanup. "We'll obviously need more custodial staff," Lussier said. The project would happen during the summer so that no students are present during construction. Asbestos would be removed in "all areas kids have access to," Systo said. Of course, the project won't move forward without voter approval. If the article is defeated, officials said, the asbestos will be left in place and monitored as it had been in the past. "We just won't touch it," Systo said. The School Board was scheduled to meet jointly with the Guilford Selectboard for a pre-Town Meeting forum on Thursday, Feb. 21, at Broad Brook Grange. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Fines Decade Long Violator $414,488 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Patterson at Syracuse Online reports that more than a decade of improper asbestos removal will cost a Clay company owner nearly half a million dollars, a U.S. Dist. Court judge recently ruled. John Leathley, of Pompey, pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to violate the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act and to commit mail fraud. He was sentenced at the end of December. He and other co-conspirators were accused of stripping and bagging asbestos-containing material and disposing of asbestos into water when working on renovation and demolition projects. Leathley was also accused of providing his clients with false air monitoring results in order to convince them that his company, Aapex Environmental Services Inc., was working in compliance with the law. The illegal activity was said to have transpired at Aapex from 1996-2007. In 2007, The U.S. Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration accused the company of exposing employees to asbestos during a botched cleanup of the former Agway Building in DeWitt and a federal investigation ensued. Leathley faced up to five years in prison but was sentenced by Senior U.S. Dist. Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin to five years probation. He was also ordered to pay $414,488 in restitution. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swan Pond Village Abatement Irks Tenant -------------------------------------------------------- Susan Vaughn of The Register reports that Beth Harris got very upset when she received a letter that the vinyl flooring in the kitchen and bathroom of her Swan Pond Village apartment were to be replaced the following week and that she could expect some debris. What the letter from the management company didn't mention was the debris contained asbestos, a hazardous substance, although she knew there was asbestos underneath the floors. Harris initially questioned the plan because she didn't see the need to replace floors that were intact in her unit and not causing any harm. The letters went to at least three other apartments in her building and perhaps others in the 150-unit affordable housing complex that was built in 1978 off Long Pond Drive in South Yarmouth. The complex operates under federal Housing and Urban Development guidelines with a Section 8 contract to provide housing for low-income and disabled people. The tenants in Harris' building include young children and other disabled people like her and were not aware of the asbestos, she said. Asbestos fibers may be released into the air by the disturbance of asbestos-containing material and exposure to asbestos increases risk of lung disease, according to the Environmental Protection Agency website, www.epa.gov. Asbestos-containing materials that aren't damaged or disturbed are not likely to pose a health risk, the EPA states, and advises that usually the best thing is to leave asbestos-containing material alone if it is in good condition. The letter from the management company, Weston Associates of Boston, said the kitchen and bath would be blocked off with plastic from the rest of the small one-bedroom apartments during the work and the tenants have the option of removing their food and other items from the apartment, Harris said in a phone interview. "What are we supposed to do for three days without a bathroom?" she asked. "Do we have to stay in the unit while they're doing abatement?" Harris, 52, has trouble walking any distance without pain because of neuropathy in her feet. "I can barely get to my mailbox once a week," she said. She also is concerned about the potential health hazard to her grandchildren who come to visit. After receiving the letter, Harris immediately started calling Weston Associates, MassHousing, the Environmental Protection Agency, local health officials and others to voice her objections. She also wanted to find out what her rights are as a tenant when such work is being done. "I don't trust them to do it right," Harris said. "My main concern is the deceitfulness." When she asked Michael Packard, a principal at Weston, where the tenants should go during the work, she said she was told she could sit in the community day room. The company did not offer to house the tenants elsewhere during the work. However, after she raised the objections, Harris and other tenants received updated letters from Weston, which stated the renovation would involve asbestos abatement that was required by Housing and Urban Development in order for the owners to get funding. The letters described the process for the removal, including air testing and a third party environmental consultant. Yarmouth Health Director Bruce Murphy, who has been monitoring the renovation work, said the complex owners have obtained the state air quality certification to allow the removal. He has reviewed the application, checked with the state agencies and stopped at the complex on Tuesday, Feb. 19, to make sure the workers were following the guidelines. Murphy said it is all right for the tenants to stay in their apartments during the floor removal, which lasts from about 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., although it might be noisy from the machinery. They could also do errands or stay in the community room, which has a kitchen, bathroom and television, he said. Harris chose to leave her apartment while the work was being done on Tuesday, Feb. 19, because she was still concerned about the health hazard. Before going to a local motel, she moved everything out of her kitchen and bathroom, including food and her grandchildren's toys and put them in her bedroom. She left a note asking that the workmen seal off the bedroom door. An EPA official had recommended she bag everything. "I hope they do the proper abatement," she said. Harris believes she should be able to deduct the $100 motel cost from her next month's rent and notified the owners and management company what she was doing. She was trying to find out if she had any legal rights for temporary housing. The floor replacements do not require town building permits because they are not structural changes, according to a spokeswoman at the Yarmouth Building Department. Swan Pond Village owners have not applied for any other building permits. The current work will replace floors in 42 units, Murphy said. The floor work is part of nearly $30 million in major renovations planned by the owners, SP Associates LLC, an affiliate of Weston Associates, the project sponsor, according to a letter from the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency to the Yarmouth Planning Board last September. SP Associates purchased Swan Pond Village in December 2010. As part of the sales agreement, the state Department of Housing and Community Development required the new owner to renew the Section 8 contract and continue to operate the complex as affordable housing. The company has a $18 million bond for the renovations at $40,000 per unit. Calls to Weston Associates have not been returned. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation, 43 Others Face Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury of The West Virginia Record reports that an Eleanor woman is suing 44 companies she claims are responsible for her late husband's lung cancer and death. Delmer Absten was diagnosed with lung cancer on Jan. 10, 2011, from which he died on April 15, according to a complaint filed Feb. 15 in Kanawha Circuit Court. Thelma Absten claims her late husband was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his career as a laborer and a carpenter from 1964 until 2003. Delmer Absten smoked one pack of cigarettes or less per day from 1956 until 1984, but then quit, according to the suit. Thelma Absten claims the defendants failed to warn him of the dangers of asbestos. The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn, according to the suit. Thelma Absten is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. She is being represented by Victoria L. Antion -- vantion@motleyrice.com --, Scott A. McGee -- smcgee@motleyrice.com -- and John D. Hurst -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- of Motley Rice and Bronwyn I. Rinehart of James F. Humphreys & Associates. The case has been assigned to a visiting judge. The 44 companies named as defendants include 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Beazer East, Inc.; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.; Dravo Corporation; FB Wright Company; FMC Corporation; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; and General Electric Company. Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-310 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caerphilly Council Hires Expert to Review Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------ The South Wales Argus reports that parents of Cwmcarn High School pupils told of their anger at Caerphilly council because of the way it is dealing with by the asbestos issue at the school. Their anger comes in the wake of the news that a third report into asbestos at the school has recommended part of the building be reopened to students. Parent Rhiannon Price said: "I think the majority of parents feel angry with the way the council is dealing with it and feel that the council is not being open, honest and transparent." The Argus recently reported how parents and pupils will hold a day of action outside Cwmcarn High School, with some claiming its future is being put in jeopardy by Caerphilly council "dragging its feet." They planned to march from the village on Feb. 25 in protest at the way the situation has developed since asbestos was discovered. The latest twist in the tale comes four months after the school was closed amid health concerns that there is an "elevated risk" of asbestos. Since then more than 900 pupils have been bussed to the former Coleg Gwent campus in Ebbw Vale, a 22-mile round trip and a cost of around GBP1.4 million to taxpayers for the rest of the school year. This latest report issued by independent asbestos surveyor Ensafe, contracted by the school's leadership, recommends the appointment of a licensed asbestos contractor to seal off the main parts of the two-storey A block of the school -- but other areas of the school could be returned to normal use. However, when the Argus contacted Caerphilly council on Feb. 20 for a comment on this latest revelation, Argus was referred to a statement previously released that said the authority has commissioned an unnamed independent expert to give an impartial view on all the previous reports to help the council make decisions. As yet, no details on how long that will take have been released. The saga has already angered parents who have hit out at the way the council has dealt with the issue. The Ensafe report states the decision by the council to close the school was "understandable" but was not supported by any airborne fiber testing sample results. But Ensafe says that if this risk does exist, it is not clear the risk is so high it warrants the closure of the whole site as these areas are confined to specific rooms in the A block. Their recommendation is to seal off the main parts of the A block from the rest of the school while further surveys and site investigations are conducted in the sealed areas of the school if necessary. The report adds that while "there is compelling evidence to indicate that it would not be unreasonable and perfectly safe to re-open the entire school", this precautionary approach is recommended. Cwmcarn High School was closed in October after a report said there is an "elevated risk" posed by asbestos in the school structure but the Health and Safety Executive subsequently said the risk is lower than first thought. The council is now providing funding to the school for a new management survey, which will include an options appraisal for the future of the site. The council has also employed an unnamed independent expert who will now give an impartial view of all the reports to help the council make decisions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Research Says 600 Mechanics Die from ARD Yearly ---------------------------------------------------------------- Auto show season is in full swing and the nation's automakers are busily showcasing their hottest, most coveted cars to get consumers revved and ready to step into the showroom. But did you know that cars and trucks are a potential source of asbestos exposure? The dangers of asbestos -- a human carcinogen -- are well known. Asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma, a deadly cancer that kills more than 3,000 people every year. The federal government's failure to ban asbestos means this silent killer is still found in thousands of asbestos-containing products manufactured and used every day in this country. A number of asbestos products -- such as brake linings and clutch facings -- may be found in older cars and even in some newer ones. People who have worked in the automotive industries, as well as those who have tinkered on their own vehicles, are at an increased risk of asbestos exposure and developing diseases such as mesothelioma, as compared to the general population. The auto industry is a hazardous working environment due to the high volume of confirmed workplace exposures to carcinogens such as asbestos. More than 6 million mechanics have been exposed to asbestos from brake dust since 1940, according to one estimate. Research indicates that these exposures contribute to almost 600 asbestos-related deaths each year. "The on-site mechanics are not the only people at risk," explains Ricky LeBlanc, Managing Asbestos Attorney at Sokolove Law. "A tragic consequence of occupational asbestos exposure is that families and loved ones are also at risk of secondhand exposure when asbestos fibers travel home with a worker. Asbestos poses a very real danger and there is a pressing need for more public education and legislative action to keep people safe from this deadly material." Asbestos was widely used in automotive manufacturing due to its ability to resist damage from heat, friction, and chemicals, as well as its flexibility and tensile strength. Brakes and clutches pose the biggest exposure threats since these parts wear down during normal use and release asbestos dust, which gets trapped in the brake housing or clutch compartment. When these components are serviced, the dust is released and creates a potential risk of disease. Other automotive parts that may contain asbestos include hood liners, gaskets, heat-seal material, valve rings, and packing. While guidelines limit the amounts of asbestos present in newer auto parts, millions of cars still contain asbestos. Older automotive workers are most at risk, especially those who worked on vehicles manufactured in the 1970s or before. People who for many years worked with or around vehicles are urged to get a full physical evaluation by a doctor. Your physician may be able to screen you for early signs of mesothelioma. At-risk workers should also be alert for any mesothelioma symptoms, which may include chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, and unusual weight loss. For more information on mesothelioma, visit www.mesotheliomahelpnow.com. This site is constantly updated to provide relevant information to those currently living with or caring for a victim of mesothelioma. If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you can contact a mesothelioma attorney to learn more about the possibility of filing a mesothelioma lawsuit. For more information contact: Dian Dulberger Sokolove Law (781)489-2608 ddulberger@sokolovelaw.com About Sokolove Law: Sokolove Law, LLC provides quality legal services that help people obtain access to the civil justice system. With over 30 years of service, Sokolove Law has helped thousands of injured parties obtain the compensation they deserved from their legal claims. The cases include birth injury, mesothelioma, cerebral palsy, nursing home abuse, dangerous drugs, disability insurance denial, and medical malpractice. Sokolove Law is nationwide, with local offices in 47 states. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Permit to Bury Fibro in Austin Facility Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Boese at PostBulletin.com reports that the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Feb. 20 affirmed a 2012 Mower County Board decision to deny a conditional-use permit that sought to dispose of asbestos in a local landfill. The six-page opinion concludes that the board's decision to "deny the CUP request was not arbitrary and capricious." Veit Disposal System had requested the right to dump friable asbestos -- a hazardous material if inhaled -- at its VONCO IV Demolition Debris Disposal Facility north of Austin. On April 24, 2012, commissioners voted 3-1 to deny that request after a heated discussion that lasted about an hour, prompting the request for re-examination from the appellate court. "(Veit) asserts that there is insufficient evidence in the record from which to conclude that there would be a problem with asbestos dust, and that such a problem would negatively impact property values and development," Appellate Judge Roger M. Klaphake wrote in the legal opinion from a three-judge panel. "We disagree. The record contains testimony that strong southerly winds tend to blow dust and other debris from realtor's landfill onto neighboring properties, including one farm and residence located a mere 1,000 feet from the landfill site." The county board had considered issuing an amended conditional-use permit to the landfill site with up to 30 conditions before deciding to deny the request after hearing impassioned testimony from residents who live nearby. Veit Disposal System sought to bury friable asbestos in pre-sealed plastic bags under a foot of dirt, with such activity required to be stopped if winds exceeded 10 mph. Neighbors argued that such an arrangement would increase local disturbances and create increased health concerns. Commissioner Jerry Reinartz, a local real estate agent, argued that it would negatively affect property values in the area. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robert Scott Prison's Full Fibro Test Initiated ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Jaskot of The Northville Patch reports that before demolition of the Robert Scott Correctional Facility can begin, Northville Township must ensure that the 13 buildings are free of asbestos. The Northville Township Board of Trustees on Thursday night (Feb. 21) approved to award BDN Industrial Hygiene Consultants, Inc. -- the low bidder -- $19,975 to complete testing of the site. The Board also decided to allocate the funds from the $57,625 it has from the Seven Mile Property. The Board said they also reserve the right to replenish the money allocated with money from the general fund. The prison was built in the 1980s, and the survey will certify that there is not any asbestos in the floor or ceiling tiles. The survey is done by taking samples at various locations and then running the samples through a lab process. "This prison was built right on the end of when the new laws were taking effect," said Township Manager Chip Snider. "We believe that it was built in accordance with the new law, but unfortunately we don't have proper evidence of that." Up to 100 samples could be taken, but the process will not destruct the structural integrity of the buildings. The survey, including taking samples, analyzing them, and developing a report, is estimated to take three weeks. Township Supervisor Bob Nix said he hopes to be able to bring a demolition contract before the board in March or April, so he would like the survey to be completed by then so the Township can continue to move forward. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Sentence Awaits Belfast Trust in March ------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News Northern Ireland reports that the Belfast Trust has pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the safety of staff at Belfast City Hospital in an incident linked to asbestos. It also admitted failing to tell sub-contractors about the presence of asbestos before they started work at the hospital last January, and to failing to manage the risk. At Belfast Crown Court on Friday, Feb. 22, a trust representative pleaded guilty to three charges under health and safety legislation. A fourth was not proceeded with. The trust will be sentenced next month. In a statement, the trust said it "continues to manage remaining asbestos safely so as to not to pose any risk to patients, staff or visitors using our buildings." It said its priority was "to ensure that any potential exposure risk is alleviated." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Slams Misinformation by ICA In Pakistan -------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Placitella at MesotheliomaCareCenter.com Legal Blog relates that one hundred and forty-three scientists and organizations from thirty countries, on Feb. 22, released a Statement telling an international asbestos lobby organization, based in Quebec, to stop opposing a ban on asbestos that has been proposed by the Pakistan National Assembly's Standing Committee on Human Resource Development. The signers of the Statement: -- Condemn the dangerous misinformation that the International Chrysotile Association (a lobby group for the global asbestos industry) is disseminating in Pakistan, because this misinformation will cause unnecessary disease and death. -- Condemn the International Chrysotile Association for trying to undermine a public health initiative in Pakistan to protect the people of Pakistan from asbestos-related diseases and death. -- Emphasize that the scientific consensus is clear that all asbestos causes harm to health and that the use of any form of asbestos should be globally banned. -- Urge the Government of Pakistan to protect the health of its citizens by banning the import and use of asbestos, as the Pakistan National Assembly's Standing Committee on Human Resource Development has recommended. In a letter of Jan. 31, 2013, Mr. Jean-Marc Leblond, Chairman of the International Chrysotile Association (ICA), wrote to Dr. Mahmood A. Khwaja, a Senior Adviser at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute of Pakistan, regarding the proposed ban. Mr. Leblond claimed that numerous scientific studies show chrysotile asbestos (the only form of asbestos sold today) can be safely used and that there is no basis for banning asbestos. "Mr. Leblond, who has sold Quebec asbestos for past decades, did not disclose that the scientific studies he submitted, were financed by the asbestos industry," said Dr. Fernand Turcotte, Professor Emeritus of Public Health, Laval University, Quebec. "Not a single reputable scientific organization in the world supports the findings of these studies." "It is indefensible that, in order to protect their profits, foreign asbestos companies are seeking to block a public health initiative in Pakistan," said Dr. Domyung Paek, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Seoul National University, South Korea. "The world has seen enough asbestos deaths. We urge the Government of Pakistan to protect the health of its people, not the profits of the asbestos industry. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Russia; New "Lead Saboteur" In Anti-Fibro Efforts ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Yang of The Toronto Star reports that a World Health Organization agency is denying allegations published in a leading medical journal that it has fallen under the influence of the Russian asbestos industry, which is resisting tighter controls on the carcinogenic mineral. In a Feb. 2 article, The Lancet questioned whether the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) -- the WHO's cancer research arm -- has fallen prey to "corporate capture" by the asbestos industry, even as the WHO fights to end worldwide use of the substance. The article suggested that recent IARC decisions have propped up efforts to keep chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, off an international list of hazardous substances -- an effort that Canada, once a top chrysotile exporter, has been at the forefront of over the last decade. But in an emailed statement to the Toronto Star, the IARC denied the allegations and said suggestions of corporate influence are "erroneous." "The Lancet report is poorly researched and contains a number of false allegations and unfounded inferences," the statement said. "The Agency has extensive experience of conducting important research whilst protecting itself from undue influence from a variety of stakeholders with vested interests." The WHO and IARC had also released a joint statement earlier this week, restating the UN health agency's position that the "most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases" is to stop using the carcinogenic minerals. On Thursday, Feb. 21, David Holmes, who wrote the Lancet piece, stood by his article. "They haven't really said anything to address the concerns set out in the article," said Holmes, a regular contributor to the Lancet, one of the world's most-respected medical journals. "It's kind of strange that the method they choose to address the concerns is to question the integrity of the person that's questioning their integrity." The article, which cites several anonymous WHO sources, states that recent decisions by the IARC have triggered accusations ranging from "poor judgment to allegations of corporate capture by the asbestos industry." The allegations come at a particularly charged moment. In April, member states of the UN Rotterdam Convention will discuss whether chrysotile should be added to a list of controlled hazardous substances -- a decision that must be unanimous. Chrysotile, which makes up 95 percent of all asbestos mined, is the only form of asbestos not on the list. In the past, the Canadian government has consistently blocked efforts to list chrysotile -- most notably in 2011, when a near- consensus collapsed after Canada expressed opposition, according to a Canadian Press report. Canada's asbestos industry is now dead and the federal government announced in September it will no longer oppose the listing. But for the first time, Russia, the world's largest exporter of asbestos, will have a seat at the table, having ratified the Rotterdam Convention in 2011. Whereas Canada was once the "lead saboteur" in the international effort to list chrysotile, Russia is now stepping up to the plate, said anti-asbestos campaigner Kathleen Ruff, who was quoted in the Lancet piece. "Russia is the world's leading exporter of asbestos by far and it is the centre of propaganda and corrupt science on asbestos," said Ruff, a senior human rights adviser at the Rideau Institute in Ottawa. The article said concerns over the IARC were first raised in November, when the agency accepted an invitation to attend a conference in Kiev, Ukraine. The decision prompted an outcry. Dozens of anti-asbestos campaigners and scientists signed a letter opposing the UN agency's participation in a "sham scientific conference" designed to "sabotage" the Rotterdam Convention. "We believe that the purpose of this conference is to promote the continued use of chrysotile asbestos," the letter stated. The IARC was invited by the Russian Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Health (SRIOH) -- but, according to the letter's signatories, the WHO severed its relationship with this organization years ago due to its continued promotion of chrysotile and "conflicts of interest endangering WHO's credibility." In another letter addressed to the IARC director, signatories blasted the cancer research agency for collaborating with the SRIOH on a new study, led by scientist Evgeny Kovalevskiy -- a "leading promoter of use of chrysotile asbestos," according to the authors of the letter. Citing anonymous WHO sources, Holmes wrote that high-ranking WHO officials pressured the IARC to pull out of the conference. The IARC denied this to the Lancet and spokesperson Nicolas Gaudin said the agency's focus was to present "the relevant science to the audience of the Kiev meeting." In a written statement in November, the IARC said it participated in the Kiev conference because "the best science needs to be communicated to all stakeholders." The agency emphasized it would have nothing to do with any resolutions signed at the Kiev conference -- which, ultimately, concluded that the issue of adding chrysotile to the Rotterdam Convention list would be "premature." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ajax Magnethermic, 28 Others Face Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury at The West Virginia Record reports that a Proctorville, Ohio, couple are suing 29 companies they claim are responsible for a lung cancer diagnosis. On March 4, 2011, Jerry Dee Hall was diagnosed with lung cancer, according to a complaint filed Feb. 15 in Kanawha Circuit Court. Hall and his wife, Karen Gay Hall, claim the 29 defendants are responsible for the lung cancer because they exposed him to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his career as a mechanic, laborer and operator from 1964 until 1993. Jerry Dee Hall smoked one pack of cigarettes per day from 1963 until 1989, but then quit, according to the suit. The Halls claim the defendants failed to warn them of the dangers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn, according to the suit. The Halls are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. They are being represented by Victoria L. Antion -- vantion@motleyrice.com --, Scott A. McGee -- smcgee@motleyrice.com -- and John D. Hurst -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- of Motley Rice and Bronwyn I. Rinehart of James F. Humphreys & Associates The case has been assigned to a visiting judge. The 29 companies named as defendants include Ajax Magnethermic Corporation; Borg-Warner Corporation; Dravo Corporation; Fairmont Supply Company; Ford Motor Company; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Genuine Parts Company; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; and Hercules, Inc. Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-309. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Hazmat Crews Hush Fibro Scare in Malabar ------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Partridge of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Police have blocked off all roads surrounding Malabar RSL after winds of more than 100km/h partially ripped off its roof and caused sheets of asbestos to fly onto nearby homes and roads. Fire and Rescue NSW HAZMAT crews continue to clear asbestos from a number of streets which are expected to be closed to traffic for as long as another 24 hours. Ireton, Victoria and Prince Edwards Streets and Bilga Crescent are closed to the public and residents warned to stay indoors. Fire and Rescue NSW Superintendent Paul Bailey said Malabar residents should not be concerned about air contamination but to contact the NSW Environment Protection Authority if they suspected there was asbestos near their homes or backyards. "It was an asbestos roof and to be concentrated like that in an area is of some concern but there is no need for residents to be concerned that the air they breathe is contaminated," Superintendent Bailey said. "We've been working with the EPA and SES on establishing where it all is and working out the clean-up," he said. Randwick SES deputy controller Terry Pappas said there were three independent contractors using vacuums to clean grass, roads and all the affected areas. "We are very optimistic that it will all be cleaned up by Monday, Feb. 25 for school starts by 7am." SES volunteers received 200 calls for assistance in the Randwick area to fallen trees and damage caused by debris from the RSL roof. Randwick deputy controller Terry Pappas said residents described a "mini tornado" which came up Ireton Steet and swept over Anzac Parade towards Chiefley at about 1am. When the wind funneled down Mitchell Street at Chiefley it twisted street and traffic signs and uprooted a large pine tree inside Chiefley Public School. Mr. Pappas described the school as being "poleaxed" by the winds and the grounds were covered in fallen branches and uprooted trees. Harry Tran lives opposite the school and surveyed the damage of his son's room which no longer has a roof. "It was like boom!" "My house was shaking and I was inside when the roof flew off," he said. "Timber came down and hit the back of my head and scratched my arms." He said it was lucky his son was on holidays because the wind had completely peeled off the roof of his bedroom. "I thought it was an earthquake and there was all this light flashing. I never thought this would happen in Australia." ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Disposal Fee Blamed for Illegal Dumping ------------------------------------------------------------- ONE News (NZ) reports that almost two tons of highly toxic asbestos roofing has been found dumped in a public area in west Auckland. A pedestrian alerted ONE News after discovering the dangerous waste. "Seen some roosters, there's a horse up the road, come round the corner there... there's a pile of asbestos," said Ray Thomas describing how he made the grim find. Despite having the potential to be highly toxic, the two tons of asbestos was dumped on the side of the road in Swanson, just half- an-hour's drive from central Auckland. "Everybody knows what white asbestos can do, it's nasty stuff," said Thomas. He was right to be concerned -- if it is exposed to materials like water, asbestos can lead to chronic illness, lung conditions and a deadly form of cancer. While the unpleasant haul was discovered close to a dry riverbed, the potential for damage or injury could have been a lot higher if the current sunny, dry weather had changed while it lay undiscovered. ONE News reporter Ruth Wynn-Williams tracked down the person responsible for removing the roof, who told her he wrapped the asbestos and took it to his own home. The man says his intention was to dispose of it properly, but his grandchildren gave the scrap metal to an unknown member of the public who wanted to use it for a project of their own. Asbestos transfer stations charge around NZD250 a ton to dump the toxic material -- avoiding that fee is the most likely reason it ended up at the side of the road, say authorities. Auckland Council said there were at least three prosecutions for dumping similar waste in 2012, with penalties ranging from NZD5,000 to NZD25,000 depending on the level of asbestos and the scale of damage to the environment. The council has now removed the toxic roofing, in a clean-up operation which ONE News understands to have cost more than NZD2,000, and it will now decide whether it can lay charges. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Asserts Compliance to Fibro Regulations --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Noonan of Yahoo!7News reports that an asbestos expert has warned that disease from the deadly substance is not a thing of the past. He says bad worksite practices and ignorance are putting everyone at risk. On Feb. 22, 40 workers evacuated a city worksite when a union official discovered they'd been working amongst asbestos dust for weeks. Across town, asbestos contaminated soil was found during landscaping at Glenside hospital. The union fears if it's being found on worksites where people are trained to recognize it, the problem is likely to be far more widespread. "We don't know how much asbestos would be going out on to domestic sites where perhaps that training's not being done, used on driveways, used as under fill for concrete slabs," John Carter says. "Unfortunately people trust their tradesman, and the tradesman honestly think they're doing it right, I've been doing this for years, this hasn't hurt me, this is not a problem, don't worry about it." But Carter says asbestos is continuing to claim new victims. "The numbers are on the increase, that's changing slightly as to who's getting it, and now its mothers and children." He says dust on clothes from small jobs can put everyone at risk. Safework SA says the regulations are rigorous, but they need to be followed. If you have concerns, go to www.cartercorporation.com.au or ring the free emergency helpline on (0417) 814-330. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charles Lucas & Marshall Wins Payout for Client ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Daily Press reports that a Somerset widow has been awarded substantial damages after her husband died from exposure to asbestos almost 50 years ago. Edward Gommo, from Shepton Mallet, worked as a fitter's mate for a Bristol engineering company and was sent to work at hospital building projects across the South West. Pipework at the hospitals was lagged with asbestos and there would often be asbestos dust over the floors, said Brigitte Chandler -- brigitte.chandler@clmlaw.co.uk --, the Swindon solicitor from Charles Lucas & Marshall, a law firm handling compensation claims for asbestos-related diseases. Mr. Gommo was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010 and died a few months later at the age of 69. A case was brought on behalf of Mr. Gommo's widow against the insurers of the firm he worked for, Arthur Skull & Son, and Drake & Skull Engineering, whose head offices were in White House Lane in Bristol. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Stir-Up in Derwent House Basement Contained ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eleanor Barlow of The Liverpool Echo reports that hospital staff were told to go to their doctors after asbestos was disturbed in the basement of a building in Liverpool city centre. The concerned relative of a worker at Derwent House, in London Road, where the training and legal departments of the Royal Liverpool Hospital are based, said the material was disturbed, causing potential health risks, a few weeks ago. He said: "After they found it my relative was advised to go and see her doctor. "Staff were really upset about it -- people were crying when they found out. "When you hear something like that the instant worry is asbestosis. "Everyone booked appointments with their GPs and were expecting to be told to have X-rays to check if there is any damage. "People are panicking because paperwork is kept in the basement and if they went down there they might have been in contact with it. "Another worry is a lift shaft going from the basement right through the building so the particles could have dispersed anywhere." The building, which is leased by the Royal and is not on the main hospital complex, is the base for 65 staff but is not used by patients. A spokesman for the Royal said they were always aware of the asbestos in the building but it only became a potential health risk after it was found to have been disturbed a few weeks ago. He said the material was damaged in "circumstances out of the hospital's control." Access to the basement was shut off as soon as problems were identified. He said the air in the lift shaft had been monitored but no traces of asbestos were found. Access of the lift to the basement was shut off so the area was isolated. He said: "All areas where asbestos was identified were locked off and made safe. "A full asbestos management survey was completed and action is being taken to address the areas identified in the survey by safely removing the asbestos using a specialist removal company in line with legislation. "All staff working in Derwent House were fully informed. "We would like to assure staff at the hospital and patients and visitors to the Royal that this poses no risk to them." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Photographer Finds Fibro Emitted By Blow Dryer --------------------------------------------------------------- Most people are aware of the common places where asbestos has been found, such as in insulation, drywall, and automotive parts. But asbestos has shown up in some lesser-known and somewhat surprising places too. As a result, in the past, some people may have unknowingly exposed themselves to asbestos, which can cause mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis, while doing chores around the home or using everyday products. One place where you may have least expected to find asbestos is in a handheld hair blow dryer. Blow dryers were often manufactured using asbestos, but it took a photographer to discover that the dryers actually emitted asbestos fibers. The photographer was drying film negatives with a blow dryer, and noted small flecks of dust on the negatives, which turned out to be asbestos. It was found that exposure to asbestos through use of a hair dryer was comparable to -- or even higher than--exposure near construction sites. As a result, many people grooming themselves in their own homes may have unintentionally exposed themselves while using this tool. A 1979 study noted that while health risks from occasional use of asbestos-containing hair dryers were less than risks associated with routine on-the-job asbestos exposure, the sheer number of consumers using hair dryers should have been reason enough to stop its use in these products. Many other familiar household products have also been manufactured using asbestos over the years -- even products made for children. Some crayons contained trace amounts of asbestos and a similar substance known as "transitional" fiber up until 2000. Studies showed that the risk posed to children was extremely low, but crayon manufacturers subsequently agreed to eliminate use of these materials in crayon production. Electric blankets, curling irons, and toasters are just a few more examples of common household products that have been found to contain asbestos. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued statements to increase public awareness of asbestos hazards in various products over the years, as well as issuing some bans on the use of asbestos in these items. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Town Residents Flee From Contaminated Debris ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that about 70 residents from a storm-ravaged town on the NSW south coast will be evacuated because of fears that strewn debris is contaminated by asbestos. More than 170 homes were damaged, including three which were destroyed, when a mini-cyclone ripped through the seaside town of Kiama on Feb. 24. Gale-force winds uprooted trees and stripped roofs, with fears much of the debris contains asbestos. Town mayor Brian Petschler said about 70 people lived in the asbestos exclusion zone created by debris from the leisure centre and a house that "blew up" on the edge of town. They are to be evacuated Feb. 25. "They will have to stay out of there until the area has been cleared," he said. "We're very concerned and we've got major problems with the leisure centre which is largely built of asbestos materials." NSW SES Assistant Commissioner Tara McCarthy said the asbestos hadn't posed a problem while it was wet but there were concerns the fibers could spread as the debris dried out. "Obviously we are seeing now the conditions are becoming sunnier ... and we are looking at a number of local evacuations," she told reporters. "As soon as they commence the evacuations then we will bring in teams to do the clean-up." Ms McCarthy said affected locals would have to keep away from their homes for two days. Another seven homes were expected to be deemed uninhabitable. "When you talk to the volunteers and the locals, everyone is saying it was an extraordinary event never been seen before," she said. NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell saw the storm damage from a helicopter before declaring a natural disaster zone. "It's just an extraordinary scene from the air -- the swathe this storm or event took through this area" he told reporters at Kiama's SES headquarters. "Seeing the roof of the fire station missing, seeing mature trees that look like they have been through a mixmaster, seeing blue tarpaulins along a defined corridor: this is an event that you associate with a tornado going through parts of America." Mr. O'Farrell said a number of homes in Kiama and surrounding suburbs remained without power. He said cabinet would discuss ways to "unlock the funds" for victims of the storm when it meets on the central coast. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Control Plan Ready for Section 5 Project --------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Doherty for The Canberra Times (Aus) reports that a plan is in place to prevent asbestos fibers escaping from a construction site close to the Australian War Memorial, the new ASIO building and private homes in Campbell. Air-monitoring and wetting down of the area is part of a remediation plan for the site on Constitution Avenue where a AUD250 million housing and commercial development is planned. Bonded asbestos will be disturbed and thousands of cubic meters of contaminated soil removed in an operation expected to last four months. The Canberra Times reported in December 2011 that asbestos had been found at the site, which was an unofficial dump for building waste in the 1950s. The Land Development Agency -- which has marked the block for 520 dwellings and 8000 square meters of commercial space -- has confirmed that a total of one hectare of the 6.4-hectare site will have to be remediated due to the dumped waste. Land Development Agency chief executive David Dawes said the waste was due to be removed between April and July, depending on works approvals. "The largest amount of contaminated material is in an old dam site which is believed to have been used as an unofficial dump by builders and residents during the 1950s," he said. "The area of the dam is approximately 5000 square meters and about 2.5 meters deep and represents about half of the total area where contaminated material exists. The remaining locations where material has been dumped are scattered around the site and in total it is expected that there is in the order of 4000 cubic meters of contaminated soil to be removed." The site -- known as Section 5, Campbell -- is bordered by Anzac Park East to the west, Constitution Avenue to the south-west, Creswell Street to the south-east, Chowne Street to the east and Page Street to the north. It runs parallel to Anzac Parade and is across the road from the new ASIO building. There will be disruptions to traffic due to the remediation. The Land Development Agency has said Anzac Day ceremonies will not be affected. The block is owned by the ACT government but because it is designated land, any development on it will have to be approved by the National Capital Authority. The authority has received an application for works approval and took submissions on it until Friday, March 1. Mr. Dawes said the agency also had to wait to see whether the development would get the green light from the Commonwealth under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The development needs approval under the act as it could impinge on the habitat of the endangered golden sun moth and because of its proximity to Anzac Parade and any potential impact on the Parliament House vista. A decision on that is due in mid-April. The development proposal is for 25-meter-high buildings along Constitution Avenue, with heights of 19 meters, 13 meters and 10 meters along Anzac Park East. About 3.4 hectares will be left as open space. A report on the remediation plan prepared by Douglas Partners for the Land Development Agency recommends that daily air-monitoring be undertaken during the remediation works to confirm no asbestos fibers are leaving the area. There will also be a mobile water cart on site full-time and "if [an] unacceptable level of dust is generated, works will be halted and additional dust suppression techniques will be employed." "Contaminated soil will be removed to an appropriately licensed waste facility in accordance with the waste disposal plan approved by the ACT Environmental Protection Unit," Mr. Dawes said. Should works approval be given, the Land Development Agency will go to a public tender process to determine the contractor for the development. A start on construction is expected next year. Campbell residents have raised concerns about increased traffic in the area, not only from the housing development but the pending occupation of the new ASIO building in Constitution Avenue. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Snubs 237 WorkSafeBC Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Hoekstra of The Vancouver Sun reports that WorkSafeBC writes hundreds of violations a year against contractors who fail to protect workers from exposure to cancer-causing asbestos building materials. Since the beginning of 2010, WorkSafeBC has issued nearly 2,500 orders -- the majority of them in the Lower Mainland -- against construction companies that violated regulations designed to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. During the three-year period, WorkSafeBC imposed 59 penalties totaling CAD490,719, according to data provided to The Vancouver Sun after a freedom-of-information request. WorkSafeBC has been on a push to ferret out bad actors and created a special team of officers to inspect job sites in the Lower Mainland where asbestos was being removed. While asbestos has largely been cleaned up in institutional and industrial buildings in British Columbia, the last danger zone is residential construction -- particularly in the Lower Mainland, where older homes are being bulldozed to put up condos or bigger, more expensive houses. Asbestos remains the single largest occupational killer in B.C. The two biggest fines -- released publicly on Feb. 25 as part of WorkSafeBC's annual rollout of its penalty list -- were handed out to one Vancouver-based repeat offender. Skylite Building Maintenance was fined CAD105,000 in two separate cases for putting workers' health at risk from potential exposure to asbestos, the second-and third-highest WorkSafeBC penalties in 2012. By last summer, WorkSafeBC had issued 237 written orders dating back to 2009 against Skylite for violations of the Workers' Compensation Act of British Columbia and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, court documents show. In the most extreme cases, the company had also been penalized 19 times for repeatedly exposing people to asbestos fibers or putting them at risk of exposure to asbestos fibers. As of a few days ago, the company has made only one small payment of about CAD1,100 toward the CAD280,000 in fines it has racked up, according to WorkSafeBC officials. Skylite Building Maintenance manager Mike Singh denies any wrongdoing and says he has been singled out by WorkSafeBC and persecuted because he is Indo-Canadian. "I do every effort I can, and they keep discriminating against me because I am brown," Singh told The Vancouver Sun. Asked about the repeated violations numbering more than 200 and numerous penalties, Singh insisted he is following the regulations. Singh has started a new asbestos removal company, Seattle Environmental Consulting. It's registered in his name, while Skylite is registered in his wife's name. Seattle Environmental Consulting also continues to violate rules on the proper inspection and removal of asbestos, including in January, according to WorkSafeBC inspection records. Singh also denies any wrongdoing by the new company. On Friday, Feb. 22, Singh showed The Sun an asbestos removal site in the 1600-block of West 59th Avenue in Vancouver where he said his new company is following all WorkSafeBC rules. Orange tarps covered an entire home where stucco was being removed. The setup included two air filter units and a decontamination area that included a shower. "We do it like this for every single job," Singh said. WorkSafeBC had not checked this site but has inspected 400 of the two companies' 600 projects, said officials. WorkSafeBC cannot "take away (a company's) right to operate a business," so it uses a combination of education, orders to stop violations and monetary penalties. There are other companies on the repeat offender list in the past three years: Globe Foundry, Hans Demolition, All Star Excavating and Demolition, Park City Homes, Mr. Bin Proposal, Arthur Moore and Effective Contracting. WorkSafeBC has handed these companies two or more fines of between CAD2,500 to CAD27,000 in separate incidents. Other companies received multiple penalties but on the same date: Burnaby Engineering, Speedy Excavating and CSR Environmental. B.C. Supreme Court documents concerning just one of Singh's asbestos-removal jobs show his lack of cooperation with WorkSafeBC authorities. On May 7, 2011, a machine operator was standing by to knock down a home in the 1800-block of East 51st Avenue in Vancouver. WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer Steve Penner was checking to ensure asbestos had been completely removed by Skylite Building Maintenance. When Penner checked the building, he saw two types of floor tiling still in place that he believed to contain asbestos. He questioned Shawn Singh (Mike Singh's son) of Skylite Building Maintenance, who had signed a clearance letter saying the building was free of asbestos. Singh's response: "I glanced around." Penner shut down the work site and asked the machine operator for the survey and clearance letter, which he had looked at earlier. Singh shouted at the operator not to give them to Penner. Singh then took the documents from the operator and left the site. Later testing found asbestos throughout the building. When asked about the incident where his son, Shawn, refused to hand over the clearance documents, Singh said there were no documents. "They assume things," said Singh. Last year, as a "last resort," WorkSafeBC obtained a B.C. Supreme Court petition against Skylite, Seattle Environmental and the Singhs in an effort to get a judge to order the companies and their principals to not expose people to asbestos. Now, if the companies expose workers to asbestos, there is a possibility the Singhs can be slapped with contempt of court charges, which bring the possibility of jail time. Another asbestos removal contractor who repeatedly flouted the rules, Arthur Moore, was handed a 60-day jail sentence on Jan. 24, 2012 after he ignored a B.C. Supreme Court order to stop exposing young employees to asbestos. "It's one thing to disobey the board, it's another thing to disobey the court," said Scott Nielsen, WorkSafeBC's director of litigation. WorkSafeBC officials say the continued enforcement against the successor firm, Seattle Environmental, is part of building a case to take back to court. "We anticipate returning to the courts in the coming weeks," said WorkSafeBC spokeswoman Donna Freeman. Singh says he will fight any court action. Asbestos can be found in more than two dozen types of older home building materials, including drywall filling compound, loose insulation, flooring, textured walls and ceilings, stucco, and roof felt and shingles. There are more than 2,000 home demolitions in Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey and North Vancouver each year, nearly half of those in Vancouver alone, according to figures provided by the municipalities. "Those people who were exposed (to asbestos) years ago are now dying. What we want to do is prevent those workers of today from any exposure. And we believe we can eradicate asbestos disease in the future if we ensure exposures aren't happening today," says Al Johnson, WorkSafeBC's vice-president of prevention services. Asbestos is known as the silent killer. The tiny fibers -- used in materials between the 1950s to 1990s because they are a good insulator, strong and resistant to chemical erosion -- cannot be seen, smelled or tasted. Among the hundreds of materials asbestos was used in are floor tiles, drywall taping compound, mechanical insulation and textured decorative coatings found on ceilings. Asbestos-related disease -- which can take decades to surface -- is the No. 1 occupational killer in B.C., responsible for the deaths of 512 workers between 2002 and 2011, according to WorkSafeBC figures. University of B.C. professor Karen Bartlett says there is no question that lung cancer, particularly mesothelioma, and a lung disease called asbestosis, is elevated in workers who have been exposed to asbestos during their jobs. She noted that it can take 10 to 30 years for the diseases to show up. "It is cavalier for a construction company not to take this seriously," said Bartlett, an expert in occupational and environmental health. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Petrochemical, 8 Others Face Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Holleran of The Southeast Texas Record reports that the wife and children of a deceased man are suing three major oil companies, claiming the man's death from lung cancer was caused by his exposure to asbestos at a local refinery. Pamela Herbert, Mary Darjean and Ricky Darjean filed a lawsuit against Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell Oil, Huntsman Petrochemical, Guard-line, Triplex, Elliott Turbomachinery, Yarway Corporation and Zurn Industries on Feb. 5 in Jefferson County District Court. According to the complaint, Louis Darjean developed lung cancer after his work as a supervisor at the buildings of the defendants. During his work, Louis Darjean was exposed to asbestos fibers and dust, which caused his disease and subsequent death, the complaint says. Although the defendants knew about the harms of asbestos for decades, they failed to warn Louis Darjean of the product's danger and failed to ensure that its employees were not exposed to the carcinogen, the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of Jefferson County District Court and exemplary or punitive damages, plus interest at the legal rate, costs and other relief the court deems just. Samantha Flores and Michael B. Patronella of Williams, Kherkher, Hart and Boundas in Houston will be representing them. Case No. 193-896. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Armitage Shanks Worker Receives GBP160,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Express & Star (UK) reports that a pensioner from Great Wyrley has received a six-figure compensation sum after developing a fatal asbestos disease linked to his past work. Eli Richards worked for Rugeley-based bathroom appliance manufacturers Armitage Shanks for 17 years from 1979. The 79-year-old worked with asbestos sheeting at a factory in Bushbury, Wolverhampton. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of incurable lung cancer, in December 2011. He has now received GBP160,000 compensation. Unite the union supported his claim, which said the toolmaker was never warned about the dangers of asbestos or provided with the correct protective equipment. Mr. Richards had worked for the firm's brass taps factory since 1979 and it was discovered he had been exposed to asbestos when a colleague brought to his attention a red warning sticker on packages of boards they were cutting up. He has been told his condition is fatal. Mr. Richards said: "I couldn't believe we had been working with asbestos for years but had never been provided with protection." Mr. Richards said: "I was a very fit and healthy individual until this. "I am a lifelong non-smoker and was still swimming and paying table tennis and enjoying holidays abroad. I was playing five-a- side football into my 60s. Now I have lung cancer of the worst order -- there is no cure." After his diagnosis, Mr. Richards contacted the union and Thompsons Solicitors was called in to investigate. Armitage Shanks did not dispute the case. Mick Stevens, from Unite, said: "The legacy of employers' disregard for health and safety will have long reaching affects for our members who develop asbestos related disease as a result negligence." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kiama Fibro Cleanup Eyed To Wrap Up Soon --------------------------------------------------------- Alex Arnold of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that evacuated Kiama residents can expect to be back in their homes within days rather than weeks, according to Lake Illawarra Police commander Wayne Starling. Residents of 20 homes were evacuated due to asbestos contamination fears. Superintendent Starling said extensive work had been carried out in the areas of the affected homes in Minnamurra Street and Swan Place on Feb. 26 and there was "a lot of positive news" that the asbestos clean-up would not drag on. "We understand it is important for the community to get back to normality, not just for the people of Minnamurra Street and Swan Place but the broader community as well," Superintendent Starling said. Police and the State Emergency Service could not rule out more homes being evacuated over asbestos fears, but it would be a matter of assessing homes on "a case-by-case basis." The number of houses declared uninhabitable remained at three, but at least 35 homes were "extensively damaged" and the fate of those homes was now in the hands of insurers, Superintendent Starling said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Castlehill Back To Normal After Fibro False Alarm ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Alexander of The Courier (UK) reports that school dinners at Castlehill Primary in Cupar have returned to normal, following an incident on Feb. 22, which led to an asbestos alert. During a program of installing energy-efficient lighting in the school, head teacher Carol Opdahl was alerted on Friday morning (Feb. 22) to a disturbance of a ceiling panel -- known to contain asbestos fibers -- in the stage/dining area. As a precautionary measure, the emergency protocol was put into place and the area was cordoned off. Air quality testing was carried out and the results have come back "well within Health and Safety Executive standards." Mrs. Opdahl told parents in a letter: "There has been no risk to pupils or staff as a result of this event taking place." Children who were due to have school lunches had a school packed lunch instead. All lunches were served in classrooms. Mrs. Opdahl said the children enjoyed their "classroom picnic." Castlehill Primary has one of the largest school rolls of any primary in Fife. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlton & United, Amaca Pty Face Meso Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- James Dowling of The Herald Sun reports that more than 20 former Carlton and United Breweries workers have contacted a law firm concerned about their exposure to asbestos in the 1950s and '60s. Carlton and United Breweries have had at least six asbestos- related claims lodged against them in the past decade. All the claims were settled before trial. The 20 people contacted Maurice Blackburn in response to an advertisement for witnesses for a fitter and turner's legal claim lodged against CUB this month. Dimitris Couscouris contracted mesothelioma in November 2011 and doctors have given him just six months to live. In court papers Mr. Couscouris, now 78, claims he contracted the disease after being exposed to asbestos dust while working at the Victoria and Abbotsford breweries from 1957 to 1964. The company still uses its Abbotsford brewery, but sold the Victoria brewery on Swanston St. James Hardie subsidiary Amaca Pty Ltd has been named as the second defendant because the company was alleged to have manufactured the asbestos installed at the CUB factories. Asbestos was largely used in brewery insulation and in gaskets during the 1950s and '60s. Hundreds of workers were employed at the CUB factories at the time. Mr. Couscouris, who now lives in California, will give bedside evidence in Los Angeles after doctors said he was too ill to travel. Maurice Blackburn principal solicitor Andrew Dimsey said his client's medical bills had spiraled to more than $500,000 and fighting the disease had become a tremendous financial strain. "He has not sold his home yet, but is really feeling the pinch financially," Mr. Dimsey said. "Our client was exposed to asbestos during the normal course of his employment at CUB. "It was known at the time exposure to asbestos was a health risk and we say his employer failed to take measures to mitigate against the risk." Mr. Dimsey said most CUB brewery workers will not contract an asbestos-related disease. "It is a grim equation but if the workforce exposed to asbestos is big enough, there will be some who contract mesothelioma." The trial is listed to begin on April 10 at the Melbourne Supreme Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unmanned Truck Rolls Through a Fibro House ----------------------------------------------------------- Damien Smith of Yahoo!7News reports that a runaway semi-trailer has rolled down a driveway, across a road, and slammed into the side of a house in Sydney's north-west. Nobody was injured, but the crash triggered an asbestos scare, and fears the house could collapse. The driver was hitching trailers onto the B-double at the Original Pretzel Company factory, when the truck started moving. He jumped out of the way, only to see it demolish the loungeroom of a fibro house on Sefton Road at Thornleigh. Resident, Brooke Lane, was supposed to be home at the time. "She only works part time so there's quite a few days of the week she's home and she would have been sitting in the lounge room right when the truck went through," Brooke's boyfriend Dylan Jones said. Council engineers were called to work out how to remove the semi, and there were concerns that the building contains asbestos, and is structurally unsound. The truck has been stuck for about several hours, and 7News has been told it's a delicate operation to remove it. The whole accident has created a delicate issue amongst the Thornleigh household. As police inspected the damage, they stumbled upon a marijuana plant, leaving officers with more than just a runaway truck to investigate. "I told [my flatmate] to get rid of it, so sucked in if you ask me, nothing to do with me," tenant Darren Hall said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBN Co Launches Own Investigation on Fibro Issue ----------------------------------------------------------------- Annabel Hepworth of The Australian reports that NBN Co. is undertaking its own investigation into concerns raised by a West Australian household with a Liberal MP that asbestos might have been released during works on the rollout of the AUD37.4 billion network. Liberal MP Steve Irons wrote to the chief executive of Syntheo -- one of the National Broadband Network construction partners -- after a household in Victoria Park, in inner-southeastern Perth, took two photographs they said were of a worker breaking down an old Telstra pit with a mash hammer while wearing latex gloves and a protective face mask, while his colleague worked nearby without a mask. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Fibro Fallout at Dale Farm Begins ------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reports that asbestos scattered after a building fire at a traveller site in Essex is to be cleared up. Basildon Council contractors will also secure a cesspool at the Dale Farm site near Basildon in Essex amid concerns it poses a pollution threat. The asbestos debris came from roofing sheets on an industrial building damaged by fire last year. The council said it planned to recoup costs of the week-long clean-up operation from Dale Farm residents. An access track for equipment is being laid to the part of Dale Farm affected. The clean-up work is expected to start on Wednesday, Feb. 27. The operation follows the eviction of about 80 families who had been living illegally next to a legally occupied part of Dale Farm in 2011. Council leader Tony Ball, said: "The council now has no choice but to act and do this work now to address the health issues and then seek to recover the costs from the landowners concerned." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tribunal Awards Mesothelioma Sufferer AUD1.3 MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamelle Wells of ABC News (Aus) reports that a New South Wales man with an asbestos-related disease (ARD) has been awarded $1.3 million in damages, partly because of his reduced capacity to care for his grandchildren. The Dust Diseases Tribunal has awarded the money to Mario Perez, who worked as a bus depot laborer at Chullora in Sydney's west from the 1970s until 1990. The 68-year-old was exposed to asbestos from gaskets in bus engines and pipes and when a roof was removed in 1987. The tribunal heard he has mesothelioma that has spread to his spine, and until his illness spent up to three days a week caring for his family. Law firm Maurice Blackburn argued the care he provided for his grandchildren during his retirement and also for his wife needed to be taken into account in determining his payout. Tribunal acting president Judge Jim Curtis found that under the Civil Liability Act 2002, Mr. Perez should be entitled to damages in relation to his lost capacity to provide future domestic services to his family. Theodora Ahilas, principal in Maurice Blackburn's asbestos law department, welcomed the tribunal's decision. "We live in a world where grandparents are often very involved in caring for grandchildren and we are very pleased this has been recognized in this judgment," she said. "Mr. Perez was also the sole carer of his wife, who has suffered from a debilitating cardiac condition since contracting rheumatic fever as an adolescent. "Mr. Perez also cared for his son's infant twins on week days and his two granddaughters while their mother worked shift work. "Understandably, Mr. Perez will no longer be capable of providing these invaluable services to his family as his disease progresses and his condition deteriorates." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Storm Damaged Fibro Imperil Bellingen Residents ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABC Online reports that there is mounting concern on the mid north coast about asbestos risks from storm damaged fibro homes and businesses. Winds with gusts of up to 125 km an hour swept through the region over the weekend. Many older structures along the north coast are built from fibro- cement which contains asbestos. Bellingen resident Donna Lynne Verrall said a house she rents was badly damaged but she can't get any help to clean-up the dangerous material. "We've had a huge tree that's gone through one fibro half of the house and we have a lot of fibro sitting around outside," she said. "Council referred me SES. "The Firies were here all day Sunday. "They could hose out every other house. "We've still mud downstairs because they couldn't hose us out due to the asbestos, the fibro breakage." Ms. Verrall said she has not had any help to clear fibro from a house she rents in the town. She said four days later sheets of broken asbestos are sitting on her lawn. "The fibro is over 20 years old we can't get anyone to touch it," she said. "There's been no one organized to handle it. "We did have a demolition team arrive who were doing quote. "Council referred me to SES for them to remove it but they haven't arrived. "They're inundated with a lot of other things I presume. "But we can't clean it because of health risks." ********* 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., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2013. 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 $775 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 A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200. * * * End of Transmission * * *