/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130524.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 24, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 102 Headlines ABBOTT LABS: Humira Ruling's Impact on 25 Similar Suits Uncertain AMERICAN MANAGED: "Concha" Suit Stayed Due to Chapter 11 Filing AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Actions BAYER AG: Judge Wants Female Lawyers to Join Plaintiffs' Committee BOYD & ASSOCIATES: Certification Ordered in Security Guards' Suit BP PLC: Mexicans Mull Class Action Over 2010 Oil Spill COMCAST CORP: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Seeks Status Conference FOSTER FARMS: Recalls 6,165 Lbs. of RTE Grilled Chicken Strips GMAC MORTGAGE: "Ulbrich" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Begins Defense Against $27-Bil. Class Action INTERNET GOLD: Defends Suit vs. Unit Over Concealed Limitations INTERNET GOLD: Dismissal of Suit Over Updating of Rates Appealed INTERNET GOLD: Goldmind Faces Suit vs. Electronic Trade Web Sites INTERNET GOLD: Inspector Appointed in Suit Over Call Plans INTERNET GOLD: Parties Asked to Withdraw Service Tariffs Suit INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Accused of Unlawful Payment Collection INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Defends Suit Over Spare Parts Provision INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Faces Suits Over Network Malfunction INTERNET GOLD: Plaintiffs Abandoned Class Suit vs. Pelephone INTERNET GOLD: Still Defends Suit vs. Unit Over Internet Speed INTERNET GOLD: Suit Alleging Unlawful Ad on Music on Hold Pending INTERNET GOLD: Suit Over Cell Radiation Abandoned in November INTERNET GOLD: Suit Over Continuing Transactions Abandoned INTERNET GOLD: Sup. Ct. Denied Disconnection Signal Suit Appeal INTERNET GOLD: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over VAT Collection INTERNET GOLD: Unit Still Defends Subscribers' Suit Over Refunds INTERNET GOLD: Unit Awaits OK of Deal in Suit vs. Cellular Firms INTERNET GOLD: Unit's Bid to Appeal to Supreme Court Denied INTERNET GOLD: Units Defend Carriers Provision Violation Suit INTERNET GOLD: Withdrawal of Suits vs. Bezeq Approved in April INVERSIONISTAS UNIDOS: Accused of Defrauding Latino Community KUBOTA MANUFACTURING: Recalls 8,600 ZG100 Series Riding Mowers LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls 63,600 Children's Beds Due to Fall Hazard MERCK & CO: Plaintiffs Counsel May Seek Fees From State Lawyers OZZIE JUROCK: Real Estate Investors Withdraw Condo Class Action PET VALU: Justice Winkler Reiterates Key Points in Opt-Out Process PRIMAL CONCEPTS: Class Claims in "Szijjarto" Suit Withdrawn RICHMOND SCHOOL: Settles Class Action for $5 Million SERVIER LABS: On Trial Over Suspected Weight Loss Drug Deaths SKECHERS USA: Settles Class Action Over Toning Shoes for $40MM STARBUCKS CORP: Settles Wage Class Action for $3 Million TELSTRA COUNTRYWIDE: 50 Local Businesses to Join Fire Class Action TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Set to Decide on Settlement Next Month UNITED STATES: Disability Claims Settlement Gets Initial Okay VITAMIN SHOPPE: Has Until May 29 to Respond to Class Action * Australia Securities Class Suits Exceed $480MM in 2012 * Hip Implant Firms May Use FDA Review Process to Avoid Liability * Lawyers Can Seek Legal Fees in Late-Filed Vaccine Claims * Medical Malpractice Payouts Only 0.05% of U.S. Healthcare Costs * Plaintiffs in Patent MDLs Oppose Consolidation Motions * Portable Heaters, Bicycle Forks Among Recalled Products Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Had 248 Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Continues to Defend 30 Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland & Unit Had 87,000 PI Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $752.1MM Exposure at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 64,000 Pending Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Unit Has $134MM Gross Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has $80MM Receivables for Insurance ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Unit Records $28MM Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,400 Pending Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $2.06B Liability as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Unit Had 2,500 PI Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful Death Suit v. Pepco Unit Goes to Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Continues to Defend 266 Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Select Income Properties Contain Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Records $453MM for PI Claims Settlement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Continues to Defend 15 PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 4,296 PI Claims as of April 19 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit Had 7,866 Claims at April 19 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Continues to Defend PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Has 424 Pending PI Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Continues to Defend US PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Continues to Defend UK PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Unit Records $75-Mil. Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Trane's Bid for Summary Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 PI Suits Consolidated for Trial Purposes ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Bid to Junk "Lieberman" Suit Okayed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products' Liability Pegged at $1.2BB ASBESTOS UPDATE: Use Plaintiffs' Wrongful Death Claims Barred ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Granting Demurrer to "Curran" Suit Reversed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Keeps Ruling in "Seymour" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Search for Meso Clients Intensifies on TV, Web ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christchurch Patients Had Fibro Risk, Say Workers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Russia, Zimbabwe Pick Up Fibro Baton from Canada ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Taint Rotto Holiday ASBESTOS UPDATE: Church Faces GBP5,000 Fine After Fibro Discovery ASBESTOS UPDATE: Funds Set to Pay GBP300MM to Victims of Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Victims Get 2.2% Compensation Hike ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l Pressure Over Fibro Yielding Results ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro is a Time Bomb ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builders Warned of Spot Fines ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns at Christchurch Hospital ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guelph Child Care Centre Shut Down Due to Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Torbay Roof Fire ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Raises NBN Fibro Fears ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafeBC Seeks Tougher Penalty v. Contractor ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gateshead Factory Worker in Fibro Cash Pay-out ASBESTOS UPDATE: Matoaka Couple Name 69 Defendants in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kentucky Couple Name 56 Defendants in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oldham Pensioner Wins Battle for Pay-out ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Separate Coal Tar & Fibro Claims Rejected ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxins to be Removed from Former Creamery ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed From Australia Aquatic Center ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Bill to Make Victim Payouts Easier ASBESTOS UPDATE: Democrats Oppose Bill Affecting Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Bill Will Deny Payouts to Many ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Sonoma State University Offices ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transnet To Dump Fibro Near Northern Cape Town ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lebanon Businessman Sentenced for Violation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims Ex-Labourer's Life ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bracklesham Holiday Park Link to Meso Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nations Agree to New Ban on Flame Retardant ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Warning After Derbyshire Factory Fire ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Disappointed in UN Rotterdam Convention List ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter of Meso Victim Seeks Answers ASBESTOS UPDATE: JFK High School Reopens After Fibro Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Woodcock's Statement on UK Mesothelioma Bill ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Substance" From Belper Explosion Probed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beatrice School Board Approves Abatement Bid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Problem at Storage Buildings ********* ABBOTT LABS: Humira Ruling's Impact on 25 Similar Suits Uncertain ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Brillman, writing for Reuters, reports that a jury has decided against the makers of the blockbuster arthritis drug Humira and awarded $2.2 million, but legal experts say it is inconclusive if the case will be a bellwether in 25 other similar lawsuits against the same company. A Cook County jury found on May 9 that Abbott Laboratories Inc. and its sister company AbbVie did not properly notify doctors and hospitals of the possible side effects of Humira, a so-called TNF blocker that suppresses the immune system in the course of treatment. Humira, one of the world's best-selling drugs, is primarily used to treat rheumatoid arthritis but is also used for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The medication was originally manufactured by Abbott, which in January 2013 spun off AbbVie, which now researches and manufactures pharmaceuticals. The case was filed by Delores and Milton Tietz of Mandan, North Dakota, and centered on the 20 months that elapsed between a U.S. Food and Drug Administration directive instructing drug companies to notify doctors of the risks of TNF blockers and Abbott's notification to physicians. The Tietz's lawsuit said Delores took Humira for rheumatoid arthritis from October 2009 through May 2010 when she developed flu-like symptoms. Delores Tietz was eventually diagnosed with disseminated histoplasmosis, a severe infection that can be fatal if untreated, according to the couple's lawyer, Jim Perdue of Houston-based Perdue, Kidd & Vickery, which is handling all but one of the 26 Humira lawsuits. Delores Tietz died of a heart attack in March 2013, shortly before trial, although her lawyers did not claim her death was the result of or associated with the drug. In the lawsuit, the Tietzes said the FDA had issued a directive in 2008 instructing drug companies to notify doctors and hospitals that TNF inhibitors such as Humira carried the risk of fungal infections. The couple alleged that Abbott waited almost two years to send out the "Dear Doctor" letter and that the doctors would have diagnosed Delores's disseminated histoplasmosis earlier if Abbott had notified them in accordance with the FDA directive. They requested $5.5 million in compensatory damages. The Pharma Argument Abbott and AbbVie contended that the medical community was aware of Humira's side effects and that the drug's label warned of the risk of serious infections. Additionally, according to Perdue, Abbott argued that it was unable to send out a warning letter before the FDA approved a communication plan in April 2010. Michael Foradas -- michael.foradas@kirkland.com -- a lawyer for Abbott at Kirkland & Ellis, declined to comment. AbbVie spokeswoman Adelle Infante said in a statement that Humira would "appeal this verdict based in part on the jury's assessment that the medical community was sufficiently warned about the risk of histoplasmosis." Such an appeal would likely center on the argument that there was no basis for causation and that the judge erred by sending the case to trial, said David Levine, a professor of Civil Procedure and Remedies at UC Hastings who was not involved in the litigation. Most of the other 25 failure-to-warn cases over Humira have been consolidated in Illinois Cook County Circuit Court, but there is also litigation in federal court in Massachusetts, Texas and Tennessee. It is difficult to draw conclusions about what the $2.2 million verdict might mean for the remaining lawsuits, however, because only some cover the period before May 17, 2010, when Abbott sent out its Dear Doctor warning letter, said Max Kennerly, a product liability lawyer at The Beasley Firm, who was not involved in the litigation. Cases that fall within the same time frame could be helped by the Tietz verdict, said Kennerly in an email, but "for the cases that don't fit within that (period), it's a much harder call," he said. "I think at a minimum Abbott's going to take at least a couple more to trial in the group of patients infected between September 2008 and May 17, 2010, before we could see a significant number of settlements." AbbVie and Abbott could also settle down the road, depending on how their appeal goes and as other Humira cases are tried, said Levine of UC Hastings. But to draw conclusions, he said, "you need a bigger sample size." The case is 2012-L-002715, Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois. For Milton Tietz: Jim Perdue, Arnold Anderson Vickery and Fred Shepherd of Perdue Kidd & Vickery and Gary McCallister of Gary D. McCallister & Associates. For Abbott/AbbVie: Michael Foradas of Kirkland & Ellis. AMERICAN MANAGED: "Concha" Suit Stayed Due to Chapter 11 Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- CONCHA v. AMERICAN MANAGED CARE, LLC is before the Court pursuant to American Managed Care's Suggestion of Bankruptcy, which was filed on May 14, 2013. "Due to the Defendant's bankruptcy filing and the operation of the automatic stay, this matter is stayed and administratively closed," ruled District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington. In addition, the Court notes that it previously stayed and administratively closed the case on May 9, 2013, after the Defendant filed a Notice indicating that Universal Health Care, Inc. and American Managed Care, LLC were subject to liquidation proceedings by the Florida Department of Financial Services. The Court's May 9, 2013, Order also imposed the requirement that the parties file status reports on a periodic basis. "The recent bankruptcy filing also requires that this case be stayed and administratively closed," Judge Hernandez added. "The previously imposed stay will continue and no further action will be taken in this case until such time as the bankruptcy court lifts the stay or the stay lapses." The case is KEVIN DE LA CONCHA, on his own and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MANAGED CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:12-cv-1520-T-33MAP, (M.D. Fla.). A copy of the District Court's May 15, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/1ZWNzHfrom Leagle.com. About American Managed American Managed Care LLC filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No. 13-05952) on May 3, 2013. Roberta A Colton, Esq., represents the Debtor. AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------- John Carroll, writing for FierceBiotech, reports that now that Aveo's share price has been badly mauled in the aftershock of an FDA panel vote rejecting its kidney cancer drug tivozanib, the class action suits are starting to pile up at the front door. On May 12, Federman & Sherwood became at least the third law firm in four days to file a class action suit against the biotech company ($AVEO), claiming investors had been badly damaged by the company's "false misrepresentations." It isn't likely to be the last. Aveo isn't the first publicly traded biotech company to get hit with lawsuits after a regulatory setback. But with some analysts calling for the resignation of CEO Tuan Ha-Ngoc after the beating delivered by the FDA's oncology chief, Richard Pazdur, the legal insults are multiplying at a rapid-fire pace in the wake of the public humiliation. Aveo's PR and regulatory disaster began when the FDA's internal review revealed that regulators were having severe misgivings about the biotech's development strategy for tivozanib way back in the spring of 2012. Regulators didn't care for the rare appearance of American patients in the study, which was heavily weighted toward Eastern Europe, nor was it buying Aveo's rationale for the embarrassing fact that the drug -- while meeting the primary goal on progression-free survival -- had been bested by Nexavar on the overall-survival front. Even at that time, the company was being advised to consider a follow-up study. Aveo, though, maintained that the OS data was skewed by the fact that patients whose disease had progressed were switched to new drugs, often tivozanib. And the company won over a legion of analysts who remained confident that Aveo would win out in the end. Once Mr. Pazdur took to the floor during the panel review, the game was over for Aveo. Mr. Pazdur argued vehemently against tivozanib, saying that a vote in favor of a drug that had produced data of an increased risk of death would set a dangerous precedent. In the end, the panel voted 13 to one against an approval, leaving Aveo to suffer in silence until the formal decision comes down. Over the past year, the company's shares have fallen 78%, leaving Aveo in a badly weakened condition as it faces one of its biggest challenges. Federman & Sherwood Filing On May 9, 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is January 3, 2012 through May 1, 2013. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. If you are an investor with large losses, you may move the Court no later than Monday, July 8, 2013 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information or participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: K. Lynn Nunn FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Email: kln@federmanlaw.com Web site at http://www.federmanlaw.com BAYER AG: Judge Wants Female Lawyers to Join Plaintiffs' Committee ------------------------------------------------------------------ Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in New York overseeing dozens of personal injury lawsuits against Bayer AG over its popular Mirena intrauterine device encouraged lawyers for the plaintiffs to include some women in the proposed leadership committee, given the nature of the litigation. Over 50 federal lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the label for the Mirena IUD failed to adequately warn that the device could perforate a woman's uterus and migrate to other parts of the body. At the first status conference over the Mirena IUD on May 17 in White Plains, New York, four male lawyers asked to be appointed to the executive committee for the multidistrict litigation proceeding. Motley Rice's Fred Thompson, James Ronca of Anapol Schwartz and Matthew McCauley of Parker Waichman sought to be appointed co-lead counsel, with Diogenes Kekatos of Seeger Weiss as liaison counsel. But U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel urged the lawyers to include at least some women in their leadership ranks. "I think that's important," she said. Some plaintiffs' lawyers had expressed opposition to the all-male executive committee before the May 17 conference. In a May letter to Judge Seibel, Michigan lawyer Alyson Oliver argued that the female plaintiffs in the litigation would benefit from having at least some qualified female attorneys who could relate to their challenges and promote that empathy to a judge or jury. She said Bayer is likely to use the gender of its lawyers strategically, and the plaintiffs should do the same. Bayer's lead lawyer is Shayna Cook -- scook@goldmanismail.com -- a female attorney at Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum. Proposed co-lead James Ronca, addressing the court on May 17, said lawyers from 35 plaintiff firms involved in the litigation had met the night before and reached a consensus in backing the proposed four-man executive committee. He said the plaintiffs also wanted to select a separate, larger steering committee to spearhead the litigation efforts. A Larger Leadership Having a larger committee helps fund the litigation costs, with each firm contributing between $200,000 and $300,000 up front, Mr. Ronca explained. In addition, significant manpower is needed to organize and prepare for depositions and trial, he said. Judge Seibel expressed concern about having a plaintiffs' side that was "too top-heavy," with multiple leadership teams doing duplicative work and instructed lawyers to bill by task, not lawyer, so she could spot unnecessary work. In addition to the federal lawsuits, there are at least 113 cases consolidated in New Jersey state court before Judge Brian Martinotti, and a handful of cases in Missouri, New York, California and Mississippi state courts. In their position statement, the plaintiffs' lawyers said they expected thousands of cases to eventually be filed in the multidistrict litigation. All of the plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation accuse Bayer of failing to adequately warn of the risk of perforation and migration. They contend that Bayer's label and other warnings only informed of the risk of perforation during the insertion, not that the device could spontaneously migrate after a successful insertion. Bayer claims that since introducing the device in 2001, the company has warned of the risk of perforation and cautioned doctors and patients to monitor its placement by checking for threads attached to the device. What's more, even if Bayer had provided a stronger warning, doctors would likely have prescribed the device anyway, the company contends, given that they learn of the perforation risks associated with all IUDs in their medical training. "We do have a lot of faith in our warnings," Bayer's Ms. Cook told Judge Seibel on May 17, adding that the company was interested in moving the litigation forward to reach its merits. After the hearing, plaintiffs' lawyer Rachel Abrams of Levin Simes said the lawyers for the plaintiffs would meet in coming days to select a steering committee, which will likely include some gender diversity. The case is In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 13-2434. For the plaintiffs: Fred Thompson of Motley Rice, James Ronca of Anapol Schwartz, Matthew McCauley of Parker Waichman, Diogenes Kekatos of Seeger Weiss. For Mirena: Shayna Cook of Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum. BOYD & ASSOCIATES: Certification Ordered in Security Guards' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that a lawsuit charging a company that employs security guards throughout Southern California with failing to pay correct amounts of overtime must be certified as a class action, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled on May 10. Div. Three, which had previously ordered class certification as to one of the plaintiffs' three proposed subclasses, said all three subclasses should be certified as a result of a recent state Supreme Court decision. The defendant is Boyd & Associates, Inc., which has offices in North Hollywood, Palm Desert, Santa Ana and Oxnard. The plaintiffs, Josie Faulkinbury and William Levene, brought their action on behalf of about 4,000 past and present employees of Boyd. They claimed that while employed by the company several years ago -- Ms. Faulkinbury for about 13 months and Mr. Levene for a little over two years -- they were denied the right to take meal and rest breaks as mandated by the state Industrial Welfare Commission. They also claimed that a gasoline allowance and a uniform maintenance allowance amounting to 70 cents per hour, along with a nondiscretionary bonus paid annually to employees who had been at the company for more than 12 months, should have been treated as wages for overtime purposes. In denying class certification, Orange Superior Court Judge Gail Andler concluded that it was "not clear . . . that the proposed classes are ascertainable" and that "it appears that individual questions of fact predominate." Three years ago, Div. Three said overtime subclass should have been certified. The panel upheld the denial of certification as to the meal-break and rest-break subclasses, finding substantial evidence that the company's liability for failure to provide those breaks depended on employees' individual circumstances. The state Supreme Court subsequently granted review, holding the case pending its decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, which raised similar employee class certification issues. After deciding Brinker, the high court sent the Faulkinbury case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. Justice Richard Fybel, writing for Div. Three on May 10, said all three subclasses should be certified, based on Brinker's conclusion that where an employer is alleged to have violated wage-and-hour laws by implementing illegal policies, a class action is an appropriate means of challenging the policy, even if some employees were treated as exceptions. With respect to meal breaks, the justice explained, Boyd's defense relies on Industrial Welfare Commission regulations, that say an employer is not required to provide off-duty meal breaks "when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the- job paid meal period is agreed to." Boyd, Justice Fybel noted, requires all of its employees to sign on-the-job meal period agreements. The legality of that requirement, the justice said, is appropriately determined on a classwide basis under Brinker. "Indeed, by requiring blanket off?duty meal break waivers in advance from all security guard employees, regardless of the working conditions at a particular station, Boyd treated the off- duty meal break issue on a classwide basis," he wrote. He elaborated: "In Faulkinbury I, we concluded that even if Boyd's on?duty meal break policy was unlawful, Boyd would be liable only when it actually failed to provide a required off?duty meal break. Brinker leads us now to conclude Boyd would be liable upon a determination that Boyd's uniform on?duty meal break policy was unlawful." Similarly, with respect to rest breaks, the plaintiffs' claim that they and other class members were denied breaks, and the company's lack of a rest-break policy in compliance with the law, made classwide certification appropriate under Brinker. With regard to overtime, the panel reiterated its previous conclusion that the issues of whether the annual bonus and the gas and uniform allowance were wages are amenable to determination on a class-wide basis, since the company's policies on those subjects are uniform. The case is Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., G041702. BP PLC: Mexicans Mull Class Action Over 2010 Oil Spill ------------------------------------------------------ Inter Press Service reports that a group of Mexican citizens are preparing the first civil lawsuit in the Mexican courts against British oil company BP for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The plaintiffs are bringing the class action lawsuit under a 2011 reform of the Mexican constitution that allows a large number of people with a common interest in a matter to sue as a group. The civil lawsuit encompasses "damages to people living in the area or who own residential and commercial property along the coast, and people indirectly affected" by the spill, lawyer Oscar Preciado, with the law firm Rincon Mayorga Roman Illanes Soto y Compania, told IPS. "Without a doubt, this will set an important precedent. Class action lawsuits have been brought, but in questions relating to consumer, rather than environmental, rights," said the lawyer, whose firm is representing the plaintiffs. On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, owned by Swiss- based Transocean Ltd and under lease to BP, exploded off the coast of Louisiana, leaving 11 workers dead and 17 injured. It sank two days later. By July 15, 2010, when the oil leak was finally sealed, nearly five million barrels of oil had been spilled -- only 800,000 of which were recovered -- and at least 1.9 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants had been injected into the Gulf of Mexico. The spill poses a long-term threat to flora, fauna and fishing resources in the Gulf of Mexico, which bathes the coasts of the Mexican states of Tamaulipas, Veracruz and Quintana Roo, and to tourist sites, although the final extent of the damage is unknown, experts say. "The government and BP can be sued in Mexico. The government was guilty of omission in this case," Rene Sanchez, the coordinator of Colectivas, told IPS. The non-governmental organization was born in November 2012 to provide advice to organizations and individuals with respect to filing class action lawsuits. However, the 2011 law on collective action, which allows groups of consumers and PROFECO, Mexico's federal consumer protection agency, to sue public and private companies, does not contemplate reparations. The Gulf of Mexico disaster gave rise to a massive class action lawsuit involving more than 130,000 plaintiffs, known as multi- district litigation 2179 (MDL-2179), overseen by federal Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans. In January, BP pleaded guilty to 14 criminal counts and was sentenced to pay 4.5 billion dollars in penalties and fines. However, the amount is expected to climb as the lawsuit continues to wind its way through the courts. The following month, TransOcean was found guilty by a U.S. federal judge of violating the U.S. Clean Water Act, and was fined 1.4 billion dollars. Judge Barbier set a June 21 deadline for the attorneys to file their conclusions about evidence presented in the first phase of the trial. In April, the government of conservative Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto sued BP and other companies in a U.S. court, after his predecessor Felipe Calderon (2006-December 2012) failed to do so. The government's lawsuit will fall under MDL-2179. In 2010, the state governments of Tamaulipas, Veracruz and Quintana Roo, as well as several companies, had brought legal action against BP and TransOcean for damages to the marine environment, the coastline, and local estuaries. Government agencies in Mexico spent more than 11 million dollars on studies, assessments, lab tests, training and overflights related to the disaster, the state governments argued. BP Mexico did not respond to IPS' queries about the government or class action lawsuits. The dearth of studies on the magnitude of the damages in the Gulf of Mexico has been the Achilles' heel of the environmental organizations and lawyers involved in preparing the class action lawsuit in Mexico. "That is the question that has limited us the most," Mr. Preciado said. "The Mexican state has not been very participative. "The damages will appear over the course of years, and this won't be easily resolved. But we are not frightened of taking on BP -- on the contrary, we are very motivated," added the lawyer, who is working on another class action lawsuit against Mexico's state- owned oil monopoly Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) involving oil spills in the southeast state of Tabasco. The class action suit will pose a challenge to the Mexican judges, who are not accustomed to environmental litigation, when it is presented to a federal court in the capital on a date that has not yet been established. COMCAST CORP: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Seeks Status Conference -------------------------------------------------------- David Ingram, writing for Reuters, reports that Barry Barnett was on the losing side of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in March in Comcast Corp v. Behrend, the latest setback for class action plaintiffs' lawyers at the high court, but Mr. Barnett is not ready to give up. A partner at Susman Godfrey, he has been invested in the case since he was one of the lawyers on the original complaint in December 2003. Asked whether the Supreme Court's ruling could be the suit's death blow, he told Reuters, "Absolutely not." He wants a status conference soon in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. Writing for a 5-4 majority on the high court, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the trial judge improperly certified the class action by Comcast cable service subscribers who say the company acts as a monopoly. Justice Scalia wrote that the subscribers did not have a clear enough way to measure the damages they might have suffered. The antitrust plaintiffs' bar breathed a sigh of relief that the ruling did not go further, although they still did not welcome it and The New York Times recently cited the decision as an example of corporations' high win rate at the Supreme Court. Mr. Barnett, who also writes the blog Blawgletter, spoke in a phone interview from Dallas. The questions and answers have been edited for brevity and clarity. Reuters: This case was filed in 2003. How much of your life has this taken up for the past decade? Barnett: I'd say a significant amount of my time and energy -- at times more intense than others. We've had several waves of activity in the case, beginning with motions to dismiss. And when (Bell Atlantic Corp v.) Twombly came out, a motion for judgment on the pleadings in light of Twombly (which changed the requirements for federal pleadings). Disputes about the arbitration clause, which went both to the 3rd Circuit and the 1st Circuit. Now, here we are almost 10 years into the case and we're still dealing with class certification. Reuters: Where does the case go from here? Is there a way to keep it moving forward for the plaintiffs? Barnett: Yes, the 3rd Circuit remanded the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. So it is now formally back in the district court, and we expect shortly to request a status conference with Judge (John) Padova. Reuters: What's your analysis of the impact this could have on other cases still to come? Barnett: My sense is it will have zero effect on antitrust cases. As a practical matter in antitrust cases, particularly in monopolization cases but also price-fixing cases, the lawyers are very aware of issues related to impact, certainly since Hydrogen Peroxide came out at the end of 2008 from the 3rd Circuit (requiring the resolution of expert disputes before certification). Dealing with the damages and antitrust impact are things that people were already doing. Whether it will have some sort of repercussion with other sorts of cases, I'm not nearly as well qualified to talk about. Reuters: Essentially lawyers will just have to be careful about presenting their damage formulas? Barnett: The defense lawyers feel like they've got a new arrow in their quiver and they will flog this case for all it's worth, and maybe more than it's worth. And they'll aggrandize it and say, 'This is really important, judge,' but the reality is that it does not change things in any significant way. Reuters: Do you agree with the academic study spotlighted in The New York Times that found that this Supreme Court is the most pro- business in modern history? Barnett: The wise thing for me to say since I haven't read the study is that I don't have evidence to contradict it. Reuters: In other words, not from your own personal experience? Barnett: It is fair to say that this court has been friendly toward raising procedural hurdles that plaintiffs have to get over, and that has substantially affected the ability of plaintiffs to prevail. I can remember (law professor) Arthur Miller when I was a little bitty 1L saying 'I'll give you the substantive law, you give me the procedural law, and I'll beat you six or seven times out of 10.' I think that's borne out by what the court has done in the last seven, eight years. Reuters: Do you think there's any interest inside the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice to enforce antitrust laws in cases like these? Barnett: There's more interest but there's no way that those agencies have the resources to police all the antitrust issues that are out there. Having private attorneys general is essential. There's just too much to do. Corporate America has tremendous resources and the little bitty Antitrust Division can't match the resources that corporate America can throw at them. Reuters: Do you watch cable television? Barnett: I do. I get it through AT&T U-verse. Reuters: Are you a satisfied customer? Barnett: Sometimes. I'm not going to give AT&T a clean bill of health, but yes, sometimes I'm happy with the service I get. It's not all skittles and beer. FOSTER FARMS: Recalls 6,165 Lbs. of RTE Grilled Chicken Strips -------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Farms, a Porterville, California establishment, is recalling approximately 6,165 pounds of ready-to-eat grilled chicken breast strips that contain wheat and soy, known allergens, which are not declared on the product label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The following products are subject to recall: * 4.5 lb. cases containing 12, 6-oz. trays of "FOSTER FARMS GRILLED CHICKEN BREAST STRIPS BONELESS & SKINLESS WITH RIB MEAT 97% FAT FREE," with an identifying case code of "000606." The recalled product bears the establishment number "P-20923" inside the USDA mark of inspection and a use-by date of "JUN 22 2013" printed on each tray. The product was produced on April 23, 2013, and was distributed to retail establishments in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington. Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at: http://is.gd/MA6d4o The problem was discovered as a result of a customer complaint and occurred because the company inadvertently used labels for another chicken product it produces that does not contain wheat or soy. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions associated with consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an adverse reaction should see a health care professional. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Teresa Lenz, the company's Consumer Affairs Manager, at 209-394-6914. Media with questions about the recall should contact Lorna Bush, with Fineman PR, at 415-326-3199. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888- MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://is.gd/vlfH9I GMAC MORTGAGE: "Ulbrich" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. granted final approval to a class action settlement in ULBRICH v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC. Jude Scola finds the Settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, in the best interests of the Settlement Class, satisfying the requirements for final approval under Rule 23(e). The persons who have validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class are not members of the Settlement Class, will have no rights or interests with respect to the Settlement, and will not be bound by any orders or judgments entered in respect to the Settlement. A list of those persons who have validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class was previously filed with the Court on March 22, 2013. The Court approves the Class Counsel's requested award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $216,666.67, and finds that the requested amount of fees is reasonable and appropriate. The Court finds that time spent on the bankruptcy case involving GMAC is compensable even though GMAC is not a party to this settlement because the claims against GMAC and Balboa are so inexorably intertwined. The Court approves the Class Counsel's requested costs in the amount of $25,468.70. The Court approves the award of $10,000 as Class Representative Compensation to Ms. Ulbrich. After Judgment becomes final, and within 10 days of the Settlement Effective Date, Balboa will make the payment prescribed in the Settlement Agreement into a segregated Settlement Account established by the Class Counsel. Within 14 days of the Settlement Effective Date, the Class Counsel will distribute the funds in the Settlement Agreement. All Settlement Class Members who did not properly and timely submit an opt-out form requesting exclusion are permanently barred and enjoined from asserting, instituting, or prosecuting, either directly or indirectly, the Released Claims against the Released Parties. The Action is dismissed with prejudice and, except as provided, without costs. The case is CHRISTINA ULBRICH, as an individual and as a representative of the classes, Plaintiff, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, formerly known as GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, and BALBOA INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 11-CIV-62424-SCOLA/SELZER, (S.D. Fla.). A copy of the District Court's May 10, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/P2lSRkfrom Leagle.com. IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Begins Defense Against $27-Bil. Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that three of Canada's tobacco giants began their defense on May 13 against a C$27-billion class-action lawsuit in Montreal by calling a witness who said the dangers of smoking are no secret. Historian and professor Jacques Lacoursiere testified tobacco's health risks have been common knowledge for decades. He pointed to over 700 references to the hazards of smoking dating back to the 1950s, including TV and radio reports, school manuals, government releases and health professionals. One of the many examples included a newspaper article that outlined a significant increase in lung cancer risk following the prolonged use of cigarettes. The proceedings were set to continue on May 14 with the plaintiffs' cross-examination of Mr. Lacoursiere. "What these historians miss is all the coverage that came out in the media about how the industry was involved in a conspiracy to hide all that information," said Damphousse Francois, the Quebec director of the Non-Smoker's Rights Association. "They knew about the health effects of their products, but they didn't meet the obligation to inform their public about what they knew." Landmark Class-Action Lawsuit The complainants, two groups of individuals representing a total of 1.8 million Quebecers, allege three tobacco companies did everything possible to encourage addiction: Imperial Tobacco. JTI-MacDonald. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges. One group involves individuals who have become seriously ill from smoking, and members of the other group say they are unable to quit smoking. They also allege the companies failed to properly warn their customers about the dangers of smoking, underestimated evidence relating to the harmful effects of tobacco, engaged in unscrupulous marketing and destroyed documents. The class-action lawsuit, which is being touted as the biggest civil case in Canadian history, was first filed years ago. Lawyers for the tobacco companies attempted to have the entire civil suit thrown out, but the judge rejected the dismissal. INTERNET GOLD: Defends Suit vs. Unit Over Concealed Limitations --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. continues to defend a subsidiary against a purported class action lawsuit alleging it intentionally conceals significant limitations pertaining to certain benefits, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In March 2011, a claim was filed in the District Court (Central Region) together with an application for its certification as a class action. The amount of the action is NIS122 million. The applicants allege that Pelephone Communications Ltd. intentionally conceals significant limitations pertaining to benefits on selected destinations and even acts in contravention of the communications agreement with respect to these destinations. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Dismissal of Suit Over Updating of Rates Appealed ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal was filed in connection with the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit alleging a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. unlawfully updated its rates, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In January 2012, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, together with a motion for its certification as a class action, against Pelephone Communications Ltd. The claim alleged that Pelephone misled a portion of its business customers by unlawfully updating its rates. The total monetary relief sought was estimated by the petitioners at approximately NIS381 million, which includes reimbursement of the amounts charged to Pelephone's business customers as a result of the updated rates and cancellation of the update. On February 7, 2013, the Tel Aviv District Court dismissed the claim and the motion to certify it as a class action. On April 10, 2013, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Goldmind Faces Suit vs. Electronic Trade Web Sites ----------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is facing a purported class action lawsuit brought against various electronic trade Web sites operating in Israel, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. On April 22, 2013, a claim was filed with the Central District Court together with a motion to certify the claim as a class action, against various electronic trade Web sites operating in Israel and against Goldmind Media Ltd. The claim alleges that the defendants violated the law and misled consumers and users of electronic trade Web sites who took part in "private sale" activities, in which the users made price quotes for purchasing various products without being aware of the actual price of the sold item, resulting in, allegedly, their deception and overcharging of consumers. The aggregate amount sought by the class action is approximately NIS101 million. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Inspector Appointed in Suit Over Call Plans ---------------------------------------------------------- An inspector was appointed in the class action lawsuit relating to call plans with fixed monthly payment, according to Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In July 2010, an action was filed against Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. in the Central District Court, together with an application for its certification as a class action, alleging that Bezeq offers its customers to join call plans with a fixed monthly payment, which results in a financial loss to customers for whom the track is not worthwhile, thus misleading them. The plaintiff is claiming restitution of the difference between the amount paid by customers on the new track and the amount they would have paid on the ordinary track, which he estimates is "tens of millions of shekels", as well as compensation of NIS1,500 per customer for an ostensible infringement of privacy. In June 2012 the Court approved publication of a compromise settlement reached by the parties at a cost of NIS6.5 million to Bezeq, and instructed that the settlement be sent to the relevant parties before it hands down the verdict. Subsequently, an inspector was appointed to estimate the damage and the amount of the compensation. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Parties Asked to Withdraw Service Tariffs Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. disclosed in its April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that the Tel Aviv District Court asked the parties of a lawsuit over service tariffs to consider the possibility of filing a mutually agreed upon notice of withdrawal. In December 2011, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, together with an application for its certification as a class action, against Pelephone Communications Ltd. for a total amount of NIS381 million. The plaintiff alleged that Pelephone unlawfully updated its service tariffs for business customers. The Court asked the parties to consider the possibility of filing a mutually agreed upon notice of withdrawal. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Accused of Unlawful Payment Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is accused of unlawfully collecting payment for the cost of a cellular handset and a cancelled phone line, among other things, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In September 2012, a claim was filed against Pelephone Communications Ltd. in the Tel Aviv District Court together with a motion for its certification as a class action. The plaintiff contends that Pelephone unlawfully collected money for: the cost of a cellular handset, a cancelled phone line, surfing services, various services, as well as for collection expenses and voucher fees. The amount of the application is estimated at NIS57 million for the causes claimed plus NIS1,000 for distress for each member of the group. A class action is currently pending against Pelephone, in which some of the allegations are similar to those in this claim. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Defends Suit Over Spare Parts Provision ---------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is defending a purported class action lawsuit alleging it does not provide its customers with spare parts, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In August 2012, a claim was filed against Pelephone Communications Ltd. in the Tel Aviv District Court together with a motion for its certification as a class action. The action was filed against Pelephone, Cellcom Israel Ltd. and Partner Communications Company Ltd. The amount of the claim is estimated at NIS120 million for each of the defendants. Additionally, orders for mandamus and declaratory relief were requested. The applicants allege that as part of the repair services which the defendants provide for payment (payment for the repair or a monthly payment for the repair service), if a certain part in the handset must be replaced, the defendants do not provide the customer with the spare part, and this in contravention of the law. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants use the replaced part in future when providing repair services for other customers, thus enriching themselves twice. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Faces Suits Over Network Malfunction ------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is facing two purported class action lawsuits arising from a nationwide malfunction on its network in February 2012, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In February 2013, a claim was filed against Pelephone Communications Ltd. in the Nazareth District Court together with a motion for its certification as a class action. The applicant alleges that due to a nation-wide malfunction on Pelephone's network on February 3, 2012, the applicant as well as other Pelephone customers were disconnected from Pelephone's services for several hours and were unable to use their cellular handsets to receive or make calls and SMS messages. As a result, they incurred losses. The total amount of the class action is NIS450 million. In March 2013, another claim arising from the same incident was filed in the Jerusalem District ?Court, with a petition for certification as a ?class action lawsuit, for an amount estimated at ?approximately NIS160 million. According to the applicant, the plaintiff group members are ?all cellular telephone customers, including ?customers of companies hosted on the ?network (Rami Levi and Hot Mobile). Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Plaintiffs Abandoned Class Suit vs. Pelephone ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary abandoned their claims, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In December 2007, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court against Pelephone Communications Ltd., Cellcom Israel Ltd. and Partner Communications Company Ltd., together with a motion to certify it as a class action in the amount of NIS1 billion. The claim relates to alleged radiation damage from cellular antennas which were allegedly erected unlawfully. On February 28, 2012, the parties notified the Court that they need additional time to reach an agreed settlement. In June 2012, the Court approved the plaintiff's abandonment of the action. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Still Defends Suit vs. Unit Over Internet Speed -------------------------------------------------------------- In December 2011, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, together with a motion to certify it as a class action, against Bezeq International Ltd., a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that during October 2011, Bezeq International failed to provide its Internet customers with the speed it had undertaken in their contacts. The plaintiffs are seeking restitution of the monthly charge and compensation for distress, and they estimate the total monetary compensation claimed to be NIS120 million. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Suit Alleging Unlawful Ad on Music on Hold Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit alleging Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. unlawfully broadcasts its own advertising on Music on Hold remains pending, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In October 2011, an action was filed at the Tel Aviv District Court, together with an application for its certification as a class action, alleging that Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. unlawfully broadcasts its own advertising on the Music on Hold (music played to callers while the dial-up to a Bezeq subscriber is under way) about subscribing to the service. The plaintiffs are seeking restitution of the service fees and compensation for prohibited advertising (for callers to subscribers to the service) and estimate the total amount of the claim to be NIS200 million, for period commencing the date that Bezeq initiated this service. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Suit Over Cell Radiation Abandoned in November ------------------------------------------------------------- The abandonment of a purported class action lawsuit related to bodily damage arising from exposure to cellular radiation was approved in November 2013, according to Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In March 2010, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, together with a motion to certify it as a class action, against Pelephone Communications Ltd. and Cellcom Israel Ltd. The total amount of the claim is approximately NIS4.2 billion and the amount of the claim against Pelephone is NIS2.1 billion. The plaintiffs claim that Pelephone acts in contravention of its license and the law in that it does not purchase insurance covering its liability for bodily damage arising from exposure to cellular radiation. The application also seeks an order instructing Pelephone to take out such insurance. On October 25, 2010, the Court requested the Minister of Communication to provide its position on this issue. On November 19, 2012, the Court approved the withdrawal of both the claim and the motion to certify the claim as a class action. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Suit Over Continuing Transactions Abandoned ---------------------------------------------------------- The Tel Aviv District Court approved the plaintiff's abandonment of a class action lawsuit related to agreements to change or add to a continuing transaction, according to Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In October 2010, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, together with a motion to certify it as a class action, against Bezeq International Ltd. in the amount of NIS39 million. The claim alleges that Bezeq International does not provide its customers with a written document as required under the Consumer Protection Law, when entering into an agreement to change or add to a continuing transaction. On June 20, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court approved the plaintiff's abandonment of the claim and the application for its recognition as a class action. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Sup. Ct. Denied Disconnection Signal Suit Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The Israeli Supreme Court denied in October 2012 an appeal in the class action lawsuit over disconnection signal against subsidiaries of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd., according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In November 2006, a claim and application for certification as a class action was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court against Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. ("Bezeq"), Pelephone Communications Ltd. ("Pelephone"), HOT Telecom, Cellcom Israel Ltd. and Partner Communications Company Ltd., in the amount of NIS158 million. The plaintiffs allege that when completing a call made from a cellular line to a fixed line, if the call is disconnected by the fixed line call recipient, Bezeq and HOT delay sending the disconnection signal for approximately 60 seconds, which is then reflected in airtime costs and interconnect fees. In a procedural arrangement among the parties, it was decided that the claim would be heard against Bezeq and HOT, while the claim against Pelephone, Partner and Cellcom would be heard as part of a similar claim filed against them in August 2006 alleging damages of NIS100 million. On October 28, 2010, the Court denied the application and on December 16, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the decision in the Supreme Court. On October 17, 2012, the Supreme Court denied the appeal. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over VAT Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself against a purported class action lawsuit related to the collection of Value Added Tax, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In August 2010, a claim and a motion to certify it as a class action were filed in the Central District Court against Pelephone Communications Ltd. The amount of the claim is not stated, but the application is estimated in the tens of millions of shekels. According to the applicant, Pelephone should refrain from collecting Value Added Tax from customers who use its services when they are outside Israel. The application also includes the relief of an order instructing Pelephone to cease charging its customers for the services they use outside Israel, and an order instructing that the money collected to date be restituted. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Unit Still Defends Subscribers' Suit Over Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit seeking refund of amounts allegedly over-collected from subscribers, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In July 2008, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court together with a motion to certify it as a class action for the total amount of NIS240 million. The claim is for the refund of amounts which the plaintiffs allege were over-collected from Pelephone Communications Ltd.'s subscribers, in connection with its collections of interest in arrears from subscribers who are late in paying Pelephone, as well as from interest where payments are rescheduled. The plaintiff also alleges that Pelephone collects payment in respect of a standing order, handling fees for the voucher and commission for payment of a voucher at a service center, ostensibly in contravention of its license. On October 5, 2011, the Court gave the plaintiffs an option to abandon the claim without ordering expenses against them. On October 18, 2011, the plaintiffs notified the Court that they insist on proceeding with the claim and the parties agreed to submit written closing arguments. In May 2012, an additional claim and an application for its recognition as a class action in the amount of NIS74 million was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, alleging the unlawful billing for payment by standing order, which claim was subsequently abandoned. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Unit Awaits OK of Deal in Suit vs. Cellular Firms ---------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit brought against cellular companies, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In May 2010 a claim was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court together with a motion to certify it as a class action. The claim was filed against the four cellular companies (Pelephone Communications Ltd., Partner Communications Company Ltd., Cellcom Israel Ltd. and Mirs Communications Ltd.) where the amount of the claim against each of Pelephone, Partner and Cellcom is NIS3.68 billion and the total amount of the claim (against the four companies) is more than NIS12 billion. The applicants argue that the cellular companies are in breach of the following duties: (1) to erect cellular antenna sites of the required scope, proportion and deployment; (2) to check, correct and provide information about the non-ionizing radiation values in cellular handsets after repair, etc.; (3) to warn against the risks involved in how the cellular handset is held. The application includes numerous other declaratory reliefs and applications for writs of mandamus relating to the matter. In January 2013, Pelephone signed a compromise settlement with the plaintiffs to settle the claim in return for Pelephone verifying and ascertaining certain matters relating to the claim and in return for the sale of earphones to customers at a reduced price for a period. This arrangement has been submitted to the court and is awaiting approval. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Unit's Bid to Appeal to Supreme Court Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court filed by a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. was denied in September 2012, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. During the second quarter of 2008, four claims were filed with the District Court for the Central District together with an application for its certification as a class action against Bezeq International Ltd. and two other holders of licenses to provide Bezeq International's services. The four claims were later consolidated into one claim. The claims related to the use of international calling cards to the Philippines, Thailand and Nepal. The plaintiffs, who are foreign workers, claimed, among other things, that (i) the calling cards provide an average of 50% of the call duration indicated to the purchasers of the cards; (ii) when Bezeq International deduct the time spent on unsuccessful call attempts it does not use units of round minutes as it indicates; (iii) Bezeq International provides misleading information about the number of units on the card; and (iv) it formed a cartel with other international communication companies that raised the prices of calling cards. The plaintiffs seek court approval to file their claim as a class action on behalf of groups of people that include anyone who purchased the relevant calling cards during the seven year period prior to filing the claim or during the proceedings themselves. The plaintiffs estimate that the damages caused to all the members of the group is NIS1.1 billion. The plaintiffs also petitioned the Court to order the defendants to cease their alleged improper conduct. The court accepted the application for certification as a class action on the grounds of deception on November 3, 2010, but dismissed some of the grounds for the claimed action and ruled that the existence of deception, if existed, ceased after the purchase of a number of calling cards. Bezeq International filed a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The application for leave to appeal filed by Bezeq International was denied on September 19, 2012, due to the settlement agreement signed by the other defendants in the proceedings and the plaintiffs. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Units Defend Carriers Provision Violation Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiaries are defending a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the carriers provision of telecommunication services to handicapped customers, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In February 2012, a claim was filed in the Jerusalem District Court against Pelephone Communications Ltd., Cellcom Israel Ltd., Partner Communications Company Ltd. and Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., together with an application for its certification as a class action. The amount of the action is NIS361 million. The claim relates to a failure to comply with the provisions of the law with respect to handicapped customers when rendering telecommunication services. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INTERNET GOLD: Withdrawal of Suits vs. Bezeq Approved in April -------------------------------------------------------------- The withdrawal of two purported class action lawsuits against a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. was approved in April 2013, according to the Company's April 24, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012. In April 2011, a claim was filed against Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. in the Tel Aviv District Court together with an application for its certification as a class action, alleging that in contravention of the law, Bezeq does not include a call details record in the phone bills, which it sends to its subscribers. The application estimates the amount of the class action at NIS127 million. In September 2012, another claim was filed against Bezeq in the Tel Aviv District Court together with an application for its certification as a class action in the same matter, and the plaintiff estimates the amount of the claim at NIS154 million. On April 4, 2013, and April 13 2013, respectively, the Court approved the withdrawal of both claims and ordered their dismissal. The Court approved the withdrawal pursuant to its assessment that the claim has low chances for success, if any. Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a communications group in Israel headquartered in Ramat Gan. The Company's principal subsidiaries are B Communications Ltd., formerly known as 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., and Goldmind Media Ltd., formerly known as Smile.Media Ltd. INVERSIONISTAS UNIDOS: Accused of Defrauding Latino Community ------------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Loja, Rosa Siguencia, Luis Encalada, Luis Lema, Jose Acosta, Nestor Cordero, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Inversionistas Unidos Corp., Searching Capital Corp., Liliano Henao, Oswaldo Patino, Gerardo Mattos, Luis Parra, Ximena Ibarra, Case No. 701820/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., May 20, 2013) arises out of an alleged fraud perpetrated on the Plaintiffs, all members of the Latino community, and others by the Defendants. From 2009 through 2011, the Defendants conspired to defraud the Plaintiffs into investing $1.0135 million, into fraudulent, sham "joint venture" agreements in a scheme, which in total defrauded 430 investors of over $12 million, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants induced the Plaintiffs to invest by falsely representing that the investments were safe, carried no risk, and would return 4% to 6% every 35-45 days. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants falsely represented that they were engaged in agricultural commodities wholesale and distribution, when in reality, they invested in high risk alternative investments and kept the money for personal gain. Ruben Loja, Rosa Siguencia, Luis Encalada, Luis Lema and Nestor Cordero are residents of Queens County, New York. Jose Acosta is a resident of Nassau County, New York. Inversionistas Unidos Corp. is a New York domestic corporation. Searching Capital is a New York domestic corporation and served as one of IUC's investment subsidiaries, particularly where international alternative investments were concerned. Oswaldo Patino, Liliana Henao, Gerardo Mattos, Luis Parra and Ximena Ibarra are residents of Queens County, New York. They were officers, shareholders, managers, agents, employees, or principals of IUC and Searching Capital. Mr. Mattos also served as the Coordinator/IRA Retirement Consultant and persuaded and induced the Plaintiffs to rollover their IRA and other retirement funds to IUC and its fraudulent "joint venture" investment. Mr. Parra is the sole or main principal of Key Accounting & Tax Services Inc. and served as the accountant for the Corporate Defendants and others involved in the scheme. Ms. Ibarra served as a "notario," and, therefore, responsible for the management and legal affairs of the scheme. When Ms. Henao and Mr. Patino fled New York, Ms. Ibarra took center stage in the alleged fraud and spent over nine months making false claims that the funds would be returned to investors in an attempt to stall efforts to recoup the funds. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Argilio Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW, P.C. 304 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 960-3305 E-mail: argilio@lawrodriguez.com KUBOTA MANUFACTURING: Recalls 8,600 ZG100 Series Riding Mowers -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Kubota Manufacturing of America Corp., of Gainesville, Georgia, announced a voluntary recall of about 8,600 Kubota ZG100 Series Zero Turn riding mowers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The fuel tank's pressure relief valve can malfunction, causing the tank to expand and rub against the transmission drive belt and drive cooling fan. This can wear a hole in the fuel tank and cause a fuel leak, posing a fire hazard. The firm has received 56 reports of mowers' fuel tanks leaking. No injuries or property damage have been reported. This recall involves orange-colored Kubota ZG100 Series Zero Turn riding mowers with the following model and serial numbers: Model ZG124E with serial numbers between 10002 and 12179, Model ZG123S with serial numbers between 10002 and 12505, Model ZG127E with serial numbers between 10002 and 11574 and Model ZG127S with serial numbers between 10003 and 12959. Kubota is printed on the front of the mower and on the side. The model and serial numbers are printed on the data plate on the left part of the frame near the operator's foot area. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/iLqs1g The recalled products were manufactured in United States of America and sold at authorized Kubota dealers nationwide from December 2012 through April 2013 for between $5,000 and $6,300. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mowers and contact Kubota for a free repair. Kubota is contacting its customers directly. Kubota may be reached at (800) 752-0290; from 8:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.kubota.com/and click on Safety for more information. LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls 63,600 Children's Beds Due to Fall Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in conjunction with Health Canada and in cooperation with Lea Industries, High Point, North Carolina, announced a voluntary recall of about 59,200 Lea Panel, Loft and Bunk Beds in the United States of America and 4,200 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The bed's side mattress support rails can break, posing a fall hazard. There have been 22 reports of incidents involving the recalled beds in the U.S. since 2009 and one in Canada. Two injuries were reported. In a 2009 incident in Madison, Wisconsin, an 11-year- old girl was placing a fitted sheet on the top bunk when the child, mattress and bed supports collapsed on her 6-year-old sister in the bed below. The 6 year old was treated at a hospital emergency department for a head injury involving a cut to her face. This recall involves the side rails on 34 different Lea children's bed collections, including loft, bunk and panel styles in twin, full and queen sizes. The wooden beds were sold in various wood finishes and paint colors, including black or white. The beds have two side mattress support rails connecting the headboard to the footboard and slats or a Bunkie board to support the mattress. Item numbers and purchase order numbers included in this recall are listed below. The date code, rail item number and purchase order number are located on a white label on the inside of one of the side rails. Date codes between August 2008 and March 2013, shown as 8-2008 through 3-2013, are included in this recall. Platform beds manufactured since 2010 are not included in this recall. Recalled bed names, item numbers and purchase order numbers include: Item Number on Bed Rail Bed Collection Name ----------------------- ------------------- 012-023, 012-024 Haley 060-099, 060-975 Sponge Bob Surf Club 070-099 Lea Elite Zoe 085-076 Home Town 134-099 Lea Elite Boutique 139-076, 139-099 Lea Elite Logan County 145-076, 145-099 Lea Elite Covington 147-076, 147-099 Lea Elite Hannah 148-076, 148-097, 148-099 Lea Elite Retreat 149-076, 149-097, 149-099 203-091, 203-094, 203-097 Jessica McClintock 207-963C, 207-963W Bunks and Lofts 207-965C, 207-965W Bunks and Lofts 228-091, 228-094, 228-097 Jessica McClintock-Cherry 237-076, 237-097, 237-099 Americana 302-076, 302-09C Jackson Creek 342-064N, 342-076N My Place-Maple 343-064N, 343-076N The Getaway-White 505-09L Elation 590-076, 590-076B, My Style 590-076C, 590-076M, 590-076W, 590-088B, 590-088C, 590-088M, 590-088W 606-091 Emma's Treasures 618-076, 618-975 Austin 625-076 Deer Run 711-076, 711-091, 711-097 Freetime 816-076, 816-091, 816-094, Lea Elite Classics 816-097, 816-975 826-076, 826-091, 826-094, Lea Elite Crossover 826-097, 826-975 846-091, 846-094, 846-097 Lea Elite Rhapsody 856-076, 856-091, 856-094, Lea Elite Expressions 856-097, 856-923, 856-924 876-076, 876-091, 876-094, Lea Elite Reflections 876-097, 876-923, 876-924 906-076, 906-975 Dillon 917-024 Midtown 950-099, 950-939 Nick and Funtime 960-097, 960-099, 960-923, Tweennick 960-924 970-091, 970-094 Teennick Purchase Order Numbers are IM92784 through IM94038 for all beds, except platform beds made since 2010 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/L3dBOf The recalled products were manufactured in China and Vietnam and sold at Direct Buy stores and furniture stores nationwide, and online at Amazon.com and various other Web sites from August 2008 through March 2013 for between $400 and $3,000. Consumers should immediately stop using the beds and contact Lea Industries to receive free replacement side rails for the beds. Lea Industries may be reached toll-free at (888) 770-7116, from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.leaindustries.com/and click on Recall for more information. MERCK & CO: Plaintiffs Counsel May Seek Fees From State Lawyers --------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has ruled that lawyers for individuals who sued Merck & Co Inc. over the painkiller Vioxx may be entitled to some of the legal fees Pennsylvania's outside counsel received in a settlement with Merck in January. U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that the claim was not covered by Pennsylvania's immunity as a state and did not interfere with its ability to choose its own lawyers. While lawyers for individuals, known as the plaintiffs' steering committee, often ask courts for so-called "common-benefit" fees from other plaintiffs who recover money in multidistrict litigation, it is unusual for the committee to seek fees from the lawyers for a state. Merck received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 1999 to sell Vioxx to treat pain and inflammation resulting from arthritis and other conditions. In 2004, Merck withdrew the drug from the market after data showed that Vioxx carried an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Thousands of individual lawsuits and numerous class actions were filed against Merck in state and federal courts alleging various product liability and tort claims. In addition, numerous state and local governments, including Pennsylvania, sued Merck under consumer protection statutes to recover money their citizens paid for Vioxx prescriptions. All of the suits were transferred to the multidistrict litigation proceeding in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Most of the states involved in the litigation, including Alaska, Mississippi, Montana, Utah and Kentucky, agreed by contract to pay the steering committee, which includes about a dozen law firms, a common-benefit fee of 6.5 percent of any recovery. Pennsylvania was the only state that refused to enter into such an agreement, according to court documents. Claim for Damages vs State Pennsylvania's attorney general hired lawyers from the Philadelphia firm Cohen Placitella & Roth to bring the state's claims. In December, the steering committee for the individual plaintiffs asked the court to impose a common-benefit legal fee on the funds paid to Pennsylvania's outside counsel in the settlement. Lawyers on the steering committee argued that Pennsylvania's lawyers had benefited from their work, including access to their collection of documents and valuable discovery material that they had uncovered. Pennsylvania reached a settlement with Merck in January. In response to the steering committee's motion, Pennsylvania's lawyers argued that the request was actually a claim for damages against the state, and therefore was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which prevents states from being sued. But Judge Fallon rejected that argument in an order filed on April 30, finding that the steering committee's claim was not for damages and did not interfere with the state's ability to choose its own lawyers. A factual dispute remains over whether the steering committee's work actually benefited Pennsylvania's lawyers. Judge Fallon refused to decide that question, but referred the issue to a special master to determine how much the steering committee should reap from the state's settlement. Robert Dassow, a lawyer at Hovde Dassow & Deets who represents plaintiffs in similar pharmaceutical litigation, said he could not recall a prior case where the plaintiffs' steering committee had gone after a state attorney general's lawyers for legal fees from a settlement. However, "it's not a far stretch for the plaintiff steering committee to be seeking funds where they did a significant amount of work and the attorneys general jump on the bandwagon," he said. Such requests are likely to become more common as more state attorneys general retain outside private lawyers on a contingency fee basis in multidistrict litigation, he said. Because the litigation is highly specific, it makes sense for state attorneys general to retain plaintiff firms with expertise in pharmaceutical litigation, he added. Pennsylvania's lawyer, Christopher Placitella of Cohen Placitella & Roth, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The case is In Re Vioxx Product Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 05-md- 1657. For the plaintiffs' steering committee: Leonard Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- of Herman Herman & Katz. For Pennsylvania: Christopher Placitella of Cohen Placitella & Roth. OZZIE JUROCK: Real Estate Investors Withdraw Condo Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- David Baines, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit have agreed to withdraw allegations that self-styled real estate expert Ozzie Jurock and two associates sold them defective condos. The plaintiffs have also agreed to provide Mr. Jurock and his two associates, David Barnes and Ralph Case, with an unconditional apology. In return, Mr. Jurock and his two associates have agreed to drop a countersuit alleging that two of the plaintiffs made defamatory comments about them. Each side will pay their own legal costs. This sort of resolution, with each side picking up their gloves and going home, is common in litigation. What is unusual in this case is that Mr. Jurock and his two associates have also agreed to pay the plaintiffs $750,000. Usually, in cases where the plaintiffs withdraw allegations and provide apologies, they also pay money as compensation for the injury they have caused the defendants. In this case, it's the defendants who are paying the money. And no small sum, either. After legal fees and disbursements, just under $400,000 will be distributed to the plaintiffs, amounting to about $9,000 for each of the 44 units in question. The representative plaintiff in the action was Bowen Island resident Gregory Bosworth, who bought a unit in the Roosevelt Apartments in Prince Rupert for $73,000 in February 2007. In March 2010, he filed a lawsuit alleging that the developer -- a joint venture of three private companies owned by Messrs. Jurock, Barnes and Case -- had failed to disclose serious maintenance issues. He claimed the defendants provided him with a disclosure statement certifying that the apartments were "free from material defect" when, in fact, a previous engineer's report had identified serious maintenance issues. He claimed the true value of his unit, taking into account the alleged deficiencies, was $57,000. He estimated it would cost an additional $35,109 per unit to rectify those deficiencies. Mr. Jurock and his associates not only denied the allegations, they fired back with a counterclaim alleging that two other investors, Shannon Stange of Vancouver and Frank Lonardelli of Calgary, had made disparaging and defamatory comments about them. Judge Jon Sigurdson determined that Bosworth had an arguable case, that there was an identifiable class of claimants with common issues, and that Bosworth was a suitable representative plaintiff. On this basis, he certified Bosworth's lawsuit as a class action. The case was set to go to trial on May 6, but when court convened, the litigants instead presented a proposed settlement agreement. The settlement states that, as a result of several years of litigation, both sides "recognize the uncertainties as to the ultimate outcome of the action and the likelihood that any final result could require years of complex litigation and substantial expense." To achieve a "final resolution" of the matter, both sides agree to withdraw their respective allegations. The agreement states that the settlement shall not be construed as an admission of any wrongdoing by either the defendants -- Mr. Jurock and his two associates -- or the counterclaim defendants -- Messrs. Stange and Lonardelli. The settlement also includes a proposed letter in which Messrs. Bosworth, Stange and Lonardelli state: "During the course of this action, I understand no evidence was found, and thus I have no reason to believe, that (the defendants) ever knew of any significant defects in the buildings when they were sold to us." They add: "We apologize for making those allegations and we sincerely regret the harm those allegations may have caused (the defendants) and their families." The settlement also includes a separate letter from Eric Fergie -- who is president of the strata council and a class action member -- apologizing for a TV interview in which he alleged that Mr. Jurock "knowingly sold me a condo in a building that he knew to be leaky." Mr. Fergie said he now understands those remarks are not true and apologized to Mr. Jurock and his family for making them. The settlement agreement prohibits Mr. Jurock and his associates from publishing the apologies in the media, although they may disclose their existence to third parties and provide copies in the ordinary course of their business. The settlement was ratified by Judge Sigurdson and is scheduled to be completed within 90 days. Messrs. Jurock, Barnes and Case are still facing another class action lawsuit filed by Delta resident Brian Stanchniak in July 2011 with respect to an apartment unit he bought in the 76-unit Crestwood Estates development in Williams Lake. Mr. Stanchniak alleges they failed to report major repair work that needed to be done, misrepresented the value of the units, and failed to upgrade the units as promised. Once again, Mr. Jurock and his associates have denied the allegations, but barring a settlement, the trial is scheduled to start on Nov. 25. Mr. Jurock has appeared in various B.C. media outlets, including The Vancouver Sun. Radio and television business commentator Michael Campbell also features Mr. Jurock as a guest on his Money Talks program on CKNW radio and at his annual World Outlook Financial Conference. Mr. Jurock also hosts real estate seminars (The Real Estate Action Weekend) and monthly meetings (The Real Estate Monthly Action Group), which feature topics such as how to build and maintain a rental portfolio and how to buy an apartment building with no money down. He also takes the opportunity to pitch his own deals, sometimes at prices which he claims are below appraised value. He peppers his pitches with exhortations such as "it's never too late (to) attract that great passive income we all need for a self- actualized life." He also offers a $500 referral fee to every member who convinces a friend or family member to invest in one of his deals. Among other things, he has recommended attendees buy apartments and condos in remote communities such as Williams Lake, Prince Rupert, Prince George and Merritt. PET VALU: Justice Winkler Reiterates Key Points in Opt-Out Process ------------------------------------------------------------------ According to Canadian Lawyer's Margaret L. Waddell, "I'm sure there is nothing that warms the bottom of the heart of class action defendants more than seeing a mass exodus of potential class members from the proceeding following certification. Fewer class members mean reduced exposure to the payment of damages. And if enough people opt out, it could effectively render the class proceeding economically unviable from the perspective of class counsel. That, in turn, could lead to an early and lower settlement, or in an extreme case, a discontinuance of the proceeding or successful motion to decertify." In 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc., a franchise class action, death of the action from a million cuts is exactly what a group of franchisees hoped to achieve. The "dissident" franchisees did not want to participate in the class action. They were anxious to prove their loyalty to the franchisor, upon whom they are dependent for their livelihood. But these franchisees did much more than simply exercising their own right to opt out of the class action. In the last 10 days of the opt-out period, the dissidents organized a "systematic and highly effective campaign . . . to deal a death blow to the class action by persuading other franchisees to opt out," according to the decision. Patently the dissidents' intent was to do serious harm to the viability of the class action. Pressing other franchisees to opt out of the proceeding was entirely irrelevant to the dissident's direct business relationship with the franchisor; but as the motions judge fairly concluded, they did so to ingratiate themselves with management. Ms. Waddell said "In my view, once the dissidents had opted out of the class action, they were no longer parties to the proceeding and their conduct, which was highly coercive, was tantamount to officious intermeddling in a proceeding to which they were no longer party. This is particularly troubling in this case, which had been highly contentious between the parties from the outset." Because of the heated atmosphere, the issue of communications with the class during the opt-out period had been expressly addressed by the certification judge, who ruled that no communications from the parties were to be made to the class without court approval (exclusive of day-to-day operational communications between franchisor and franchisees). Justice George Strathy explained: "The provision limiting communications before the end of the opt- out period to those approved by the court reflected the concern that the integrity of the opt-out process would be impaired if class members were subjected to unfair, misleading or oppressive communications by either party. That concern exists in all class proceedings, but it exists in particular in cases such as this one, where the class members have an ongoing relationship with the defendant. It also reflected the fact that the atmosphere had been heated and there was some risk that the fairness of the opt- out process would be undermined if the court did not exercise careful control." Not surprisingly, the plaintiff took exception to the dissident's conduct, particularly in the face of the court's direction that had been aimed at silencing coercive communications during the opt-out period. The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the opt outs delivered after the dissidents began their targeted campaign. The motions judge found the opt-out campaign had spread misinformation and was coercive, contrary to the fundamental principle that class members "ought to be free to exercise their right to participate in or abstain from the class action on an informed, voluntary basis, free from undue influence," as noted in 2002's 1176560 Ontario Ltd. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. The motions judge recognized the facts before him were exceptional and he thoughtfully crafted a remedy to the case. The opt outs delivered after the campaign began were declared void, and those putative opt outs would be given the opportunity to reconsider their choice after a pending summary judgment motion was decided. The defendant appealed. It was, not surprisingly, pleased with the results of the dissidents' campaign, which had resulted in well over half of the current franchisees excluding themselves from the action. Chief Justice Warren Winkler allowed the appeal, finding the facts did not support the conclusions reached by the motions judge. While the appeal was allowed based upon the Court of Appeal's starkly different interpretation of the evidence before the court (it found the conduct was not coercive), the message from that court was consistent with the message of the trial judge. Particularly, the courts will be highly vigilant to protect the integrity of the class proceeding, including the opt-out process. Justice Winkler reiterated the following key points: * class members have the right to make a fully informed and voluntary decision about whether to remain as a member of the class or to opt out; * class members should be free to exercise that decision on an informed, voluntary basis, free from undue influence; * where class members engage in conduct that amounts to misinformation, threats, intimidation, coercion, or that reveals some other improper purpose in an attempt to undermine the opt-out process, the court may intervene to restrain and remediate the effect of such conduct; * where the parties become aware that class members or former class members are engaging in tactics that may demand judicial scrutiny during the opt-out period, the representative plaintiff should promptly seek the intervention of the supervising judge, and if the defendant does nothing, it does so at its own risk. While Justice Winkler did not agree with the motion judge's findings on the facts he did deliver a stern warning against the type of conduct that occurred in this case: "I think it is important to emphasize that the [Class Proceedings Act] does not contemplate the politicization of the opt-out process. . . . Within the statutory framework of the CPA, there is no legitimate purpose that can be achieved by politicizing the opt-out process. As explained in A&P, at para. 32, certification motions are not determined through a referendum of the class members. Nor is the viability of the class action dependent on majority support. Just as the percentage of support amongst class members is not an element of certification, opting out cannot stop a class action. The number of opt-outs does not in itself provide a basis for decertifying a class action." The mere fact the Pet Valu appeal was allowed should not be taken as a signal to defendants or their supporters among putative class members or opt outs that they will now have a freer reign in encouraging class members to exclude themselves from a certified proceeding. The Court of Appeal has confirmed their conduct will continue to be subjected to careful scrutiny and, in appropriate circumstances, the court will not hesitate to take action to maintain the integrity of its process. PRIMAL CONCEPTS: Class Claims in "Szijjarto" Suit Withdrawn ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ROBERT SZIJJARTO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KYLE McCARRELL AND DANTE FARIAS, dba Primal Concepts, Defendants, Civil Action No. H-11-4226, (S.D. Tex.), withdrew their class action allegations and stated that the parties were attempting to settle. The plaintiffs also stated that they would provide the court with a status update within two weeks. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal directed the parties to file a written status report on the status of settlement negotiations and of the efforts by defendant Primal Concepts to secure legal representation, now that the case is proceeding only as an individual claim. A copy of the District Court's May 10, 2013 Order is available at http://is.gd/MevaQSfrom Leagle.com. RICHMOND SCHOOL: Settles Class Action for $5 Million ---------------------------------------------------- Rachel DePompa, writing for WWBT, reports that a proposed $5 million settlement is in the works for a class action lawsuit against a "for-profit" college in Henrico County. The court is looking for people who went to the Richmond School of Health and Technology between 2004 and February of this year. You may be able to join the multi-million dollar lawsuit started by several former students. The students went to the school to become surgical technicians, medical assistants, and billing encoders. These students say they left RSHT without any preparation for certification or licensing tests. "If you go to the store and you buy something that's not good, what do you do? You take it back and get a refund. I can't take my degree back and get a refund," said La-Deva Dabney. Ms. Dabney signed on to the suit last summer after our stories first aired. She and seven other plaintiffs, like Amanda Smith, make similar claims. The students say the school -- which has a campus at Willow Lawn in Henrico and another in Chester -- encourages students to take out large loans for an education the schools knows is inadequate. If the suit is accepted by a judge, Amanda would get back her $33,000 in loans and fees. Ms. Dabney would receive at least $25,000. If you went to the school, you can still sign on to the suit - but, under the proposal right now, you'd only get a maximum of about $1,000. Call 1-866-897-8900 to find out if you qualify. WWBT reached out to the school and are still waiting for attorneys to send us a statement. In the past, RSHT has vehemently denied the allegations in the suit. SERVIER LABS: On Trial Over Suspected Weight Loss Drug Deaths ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the makers of a diabetes and weight loss drug suspected in the deaths of hundreds of people went on trial on May 21, facing charges they misled the public about the product's safety. But after years of delays in one of France's biggest recent health scandals, the proceedings could still be pushed back further. Between 1976 and 2009, around 5 million people took Mediator, which was used to treat weight problems among diabetics and also marketed more widely. The European Medicines Agency pulled Mediator from shelves when it found that its active ingredient, benfluorex, could lead to a dangerous thickening of heart valves. French health officials have said the drug may be linked 500 deaths; other studies have put the figure several times higher. Others who took the drug have suffered health problems. Servier Laboratories, which sold Mediator, and its founder Jacques Servier face charges of "aggravated deception" in a trial that opened in Nanterre, outside Paris. The 91-year-old Servier was present as proceedings began, slouching in his chair with his arms crossed. Solange Roine, who once took Mediator, said she was glad that Mr. Servier was there to answer the charges. "I hope he will confess at least," she said as she entered the court room. She wanted him to address "all the victims, because I am not the only one and some are not here anymore to talk about it." But Mr. Servier left after two hours, after his lawyer asked for permission from the court, without saying much beyond confirming his name. The day was filled with arguments over whether the trial should go forward or wait for the results of a separate investigation being carried out by a Paris judge. Lawyers for Mr. Servier and the company argued that it was unfair that their clients face two trials on the same facts. In addition to fraud charges, the investigation in Paris is also looking into manslaughter charges, and some victims would prefer to wait for those more thorough -- and serious -- proceedings to play out. But other victims contend that Mr. Servier and his company are just using delaying tactics. Their lawyers argued on May 21 that the Nanterre trial was completely separate from the Paris investigation because it concerned their cases. The Paris investigation, they contend, is broader. A trial could also help some victims move forward their claims for financial compensation. SKECHERS USA: Settles Class Action Over Toning Shoes for $40MM -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge approved a $40 million class-action settlement on May 13 between Skechers USA Inc. and consumers who bought toning shoes after ads made unfounded claims that the footwear would help people lose weight and strengthen muscles. U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell in Louisville approved the deal, which covers more than 520,000 claims. About 1,000 people eligible for coverage by the settlement opted not to take part. Those with approved claims will be able to get a maximum repayment for their purchase -- up to $80 per pair of Shape-Ups; $84 per pair of Resistance Runner shoes; up to $54 per pair of Podded Sole Shoes; and $40 per pair of Tone-Ups. Judge Russell also awarded $5 million for the attorneys in the case to split. Judge Russell ordered that the money cannot come from the $40 million settlement fund set aside for consumers. Two people that served as the lead plaintiffs in the case will receive payments of $2,500 each. Judge Russell considered multiple factors in deciding to approve the settlement and found it provides just compensation to the plaintiffs. "Accordingly, the court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate," Judge Russell wrote. The approval comes a year after Manhattan Beach, Calif.-based Skechers reached a deal with the Federal Trade Commission over the ads. The settlement covers more than 70 lawsuits from across the country. The lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in Louisville. Skechers denied the allegations but said it settled to avoid long litigation. The settlement grew out of a series of ads Skechers aired featuring celebrity endorsers such as Kim Kardashian and Brooke Burke, with claims that the shoes could help people lose weight and strengthen their butt, leg and stomach muscles. Skechers billed its Shape-ups as a fitness tool designed to promote weight loss and tone muscles with the shoe's curved "rocker" or rolling bottom -- saying it provides natural instability and causes the consumer to "use more energy with every step." Shape-ups cost about $100 and are sold at retailers nationwide. Ads for the Resistance Runner shoes claimed people who wear them could increase "muscle activation" by up to 85 percent for posture-related muscles and 71 percent for one of the muscles in the buttocks. Eleven people filed objections to the settlement, ranging from people seeking the full purchase price of their shoes in return to one person saying the settlement would preclude him from seeking damages on his own. The judge rejected those arguments. Should claims not consume the entire $40 million settlement, Russell ordered the remaining money to go to the Federal Trade Commission. A settlement with the FTC bars Skechers from running the ads in the future. The agency settled similar charges with Reebok last year over its EasyTone walking shoes and RunTone running shoes. That $25 million agreement also provided customer refunds. STARBUCKS CORP: Settles Wage Class Action for $3 Million -------------------------------------------------------- Dan Prochilo, writing for Law360, reports that Starbucks Corp. agreed to pay $3 million to resolve a class action filed by workers in California alleging the company denied them required meal breaks and issued inaccurate wage statements, according to documents filed in California federal court on May 10. The agreement would settle a five-year-old suit against the company from workers who alleged that, while company policy officially permitted them to take meal breaks, they were effectively denied off-duty breaks because the company's coffeehouses were always busy and understaffed. TELSTRA COUNTRYWIDE: 50 Local Businesses to Join Fire Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABC News reports that a Warrnambool-based law firm has announced a class action against Telstra over the exchange fire that caused a telecommunications blackout in south-west Victoria last November. Maddens Lawyers says about 65,000 people lost phone and internet services and the economy lost up to AUD27 million as a result. Lawyer Brendan Pendergast says the compensation offered by Telstra is inadequate and the class action will seek to recover the losses suffered by local businesses. "We've got in excess of 50 local businesses registered with us and then we've got the ongoing dialogue with local accountants throughout the region and then scores and scores of casual enquiries," he said. "I'm quite confident now we've got the class action commenced there'll be hundreds of businesses come on board." However, Telstra denies claims it is not providing adequate compensation to businesses affected by the exchange fire. Bill Mundy of Telstra Countrywide says it has been giving people their compensation claims in full, if they have provided the right information. "On average, where customers have responded to our compensation process with the appropriate information and have been able to do that thoroughly, we've been able to pay their claims without question," he said. "We're certainly asking for them to identify the lost profit and the expense that they may have incurred as a result of trying to work through the outage and where they're able to do that we're certainly paying the compensation appropriately." According The Standard's Clare Quirk, Mr. Pendergast referred to a study into the outage which found the economic impact on the region was between AUD13 million and AUD27 million. He said compensation being offered by Telstra was just a fraction of the gross impact on the region. "The compensation scheme that businesses are being presented with as a means to soothe their losses is nothing like adequate," he said. He said customers who feared they had run their race by accessing funds via the Telstra compensation scheme could still join the class action. "Our advice is the release that customers have been required to sign may not be binding; businesses concerned about their losses would be well-advised to seek further legal advice -- the cost for which is also recoverable," he said. An RMIT study has identified that around 65,000 landline and 16,500 ADSL services across south-west Victoria were impacted by the November 22 exchange blaze. This is in addition to the mobile phone, broadband, ATM and EFTPOS services that were rendered useless by the outage. Mr. Pendergast said the next step would be to identify the lead plaintiffs and then issue the proceedings. TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Set to Decide on Settlement Next Month ---------------------------------------------------------- David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a federal judge will decide next month whether to grant final approval to a class-action settlement covering as many as 22 million current and former Toyota owners over sudden acceleration claims valued at as much as $1.63 billion. The settlement is "a landmark, if not a record, settlement in automobile defects class action litigation in the United States," said Steve Berman, a lawyer for the owners, in a recent court filing. Preliminary notices have been sent to 22.6 million current and former Toyota owners that were identified through R.L. Polk & Co. data. Some safety advocates are objecting to a plan to spend $30 million on an automobile safety research and education fund. The settlement includes $14.2 million for a driver education media campaign, $15 million for research into active safety features and $800,000 for a consumer study on defense driving and proper use of vehicle safety systems. Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore defended the agreement. "This agreement is structured in ways that we believe provide real value to our customers and demonstrate that they can count on Toyota to stand behind our vehicles. We believe that approval of this settlement is in the best interests of all affected parties," she said. Benjamin Kelley, a former U.S. auto safety and vice president at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said the settlement "would pursue long-discredited approaches for changing the behavior of drivers, rather than the safety performance levels of vehicles 'rendered unsafe.'" Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that electronic defects were to blame for some of the incidents of sudden acceleration. Toyota executives point to a report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and NASA released in 2011 that found no evidence of electronic failures. Mr. Kelley argues that "somehow 'educating' drivers will solve the problems brought on by Toyota's misbehavior. This is a dangerous and dishonest assumption." Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, argued it is "far better to cure unintended acceleration rather than targeting the symptoms of unintended acceleration." He wants the research program focused on "underlying issues of failures in electronic systems and controls in modern research." But Mr. Berman said the $30 million fund "will significantly advance vehicle and driver safety" and will fund research at five universities, including the University of Michigan. The U-M Transportation Research Institute will conduct a three- year project to help drivers avoid crashes and "provide new knowledge, models, and tools to enable improved designs of automotive crash avoidance systems and more effective deployment strategies." Any cash not claimed by Toyota owners will be used for additional auto safety research by the five schools. Mr. Berman said the driver education campaign will be guided by the $800,000 study that will ask drivers about unintended acceleration. U.S. District Judge James Selna will hold a June 14 "fairness hearing" in California on the settlement. It doesn't cover wrongful death lawsuits that are pending against Toyota. About 9 million owners are eligible for payments that will range from $37.50 to $125. The settlement also includes $200 million in lawyers fees that Toyota will pay to the owners and $27 million in costs. UNITED STATES: Disability Claims Settlement Gets Initial Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in Brooklyn on May 3 gave preliminary approval to a proposed settlement in a lawsuit that alleges five administrative law judges displayed hostility and bias toward disability benefit claimants. U.S. District Judge Carol Amon also conditionally certified a class of potentially thousands of individuals whose Social Security disability insurance claims were fully or partially rejected by one of the five administrative law judges named in the 2011 lawsuit. A fairness hearing on the settlement has been set in Brooklyn federal court for July 24. The complaint was brought in 2001 against Social Security Administrator Michael Astrue by eight disabled individuals whose disability benefit claims were rejected by one of the five ALJs -- David Nisnewitz, Marilyn Hoppenfeld, Seymour Fier, Michael Cofresi and Hazel Strauss. They were all in the Queens Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, which is part of the Social Security Administration. The complaint said that the ALJs created a "brick wall of bias" and accused them of systematically ignoring medical evidence, failing to adhere to legal standards and depriving claimants of fair hearings. While the proposed settlement would allow the ALJs to keep their jobs, an estimated 4,000 individuals whose benefit claims were fully or partially rejected by one of the five ALJs since 2008 would be entitled to new hearings before different ALJs in Queens, according to court filings. The terms of the proposed settlement would also require the five ALJs to be retrained and their decisions to be monitored for signs of misconduct or legal error. A lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Jim Walden of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, called the ruling "another important step forward for thousands of disabled New Yorkers, who have waited far too long for justice and disability benefits." A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in the Eastern District of New York, which represented the Social Security Administration in the case, declined to comment. The case is Padro v. Astrue, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 11-1788. For the plaintiffs: Jim Walden of Gibson Crutcher & Dunn and Emilia Sicilia and Ian Feldman of the Urban Justice Center. For Social Security: Carlotta Wells of the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, and Gail Matthews of the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York. VITAMIN SHOPPE: Has Until May 29 to Respond to Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Joan Verdon, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that executives at North Bergen-based retailer Vitamin Shoppe Inc. have been accused in a class-action lawsuit of issuing false statements regarding the company's operations, and of profiting by selling their stock at inflated prices. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Newark by law firms in Saddle Brook and Melville, N.Y., was triggered by a drop in Vitamin Shoppe's stock price that began on Feb. 25, the day the company reported fourth-quarter and full-year financial results for 2012 that were below analysts' estimates. Within two days of the earnings release, some 5 million shares of the company's stock had been traded and the stock price had fallen from $64.85 to $51.44, a decline of about 20 percent. The company's stock closed at $45.94 on May 13 in New York Stock Exchange trading, down close to 30 percent since Feb. 25. The law firms Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP of Saddle Brook and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP of Melville, and more than half a dozen other firms, are seeking plaintiffs who bought Vitamin Shoppe stock between May 8, 2012, and Feb. 25 of this year to join the class action. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a Michigan man, alleges that company executives "issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's operations, business trends and same-store sales trends." The complaint alleges that Vitamin Shoppe executives failed to disclose that sales were being hurt by competition from online retailers and by discounting at competitor GNC and that sales at stores open at least a year (same-store sales) were trending down. The suit also alleges that three of the company's top executives -- Chief Executive Officer Anthony Truesdale, Executive Chairman of the Board Richard Markee and President and Chief Operating Officer Michael Archbold -- benefited from those misleading statements by being able to sell $30.8 million of Vitamin Shoppe stock at inflated prices. Vitamin Shoppe has until May 29 to reply to the complaint, according to summons. A spokeswoman for the company declined to comment on the suit, saying the Vitamin Shoppe does not comment on pending litigation. * Australia Securities Class Suits Exceed $480MM in 2012 -------------------------------------------------------- According to The Bull Premium, litigation funders typically receive around 30 per cent of the settlement for a class action and have their legal bills reimbursed by the losing side. High returns are needed because class actions are an all-or-nothing pursuit for funders if they go to trial. King & Wood Mallesons' latest Class Actions in Australia report said securities class actions exceeded $480 million in 2012, a booming year for litigation funding that saw a record 13 class- action settlements and the prominent $200-million Centro settlement. Centro's settlement and the bank-fees class action, the largest collective legal action in Australia in which 12 banks are being sued for charging customers unfair fees, has greatly boosted the profile of litigation funding and sparked complaints from companies and boards that dislike the practice. Litigation-funding critics believe the industry's slice of case settlements is too high and that super-normal profits will encourage more funders to set up in Australia and pursue cases with less merit in the hope of early settlement. Critics fear this country, like the US, will become excessively litigious and that the only long-term winners will be law firms and litigation funders. More competition and the tighter regulation are significant risks for IMF and other litigation funders. But IMF has a dominant industry position and regulatory changes so far have been fewer than expected. IMF has a stellar position in an industry with strong growth prospects. Moreover, litigation funding is deceptively complex to do well and has higher barriers to entry than is widely known. It takes great skill to pick class actions to bankroll, for a few bad verdicts can leave a litigation funder with millions in legal costs. IMF's case-selection record over a long period is exemplary. Like Slater & Gordon, IMF has good potential to expand offshore -- in its case, the United States -- and it is also due for a pause after strong share-price gains this year. Of the two, Slater & Gordon has the lower risk profile and is better suited to portfolio investors who want to increase their allocation to small and mid-cap stocks. IMF arguably offers the better value, particularly with two of Australia's biggest class actions -- the bank-fees case and an IMF-led class action against ratings agency Standard & Poor's -- offering a potential earnings boost in the next few years. * Hip Implant Firms May Use FDA Review Process to Avoid Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that the leading plaintiff trial lawyers association has asked the Food and Drug Administration to prevent the manufacturers of controversial all- metal hip implants from using a proposed change in the device- approval process to shield the companies from liability. The implants were developed to be more durable than those made from a plastic socket and ceramic or metal ball, but studies have shown that the all-metal versions can shed debris, potentially damaging bone and soft tissue. Several makers have been inundated with lawsuits claiming injuries, and a number of the all-metal implants have been recalled. In response, the FDA in January issued a proposed rule that would require the manufacturers to go through a more extensive safety review process in order to continue selling the devices or to bring new ones to market. That would be a change from the current process, where manufacturers obtain approval by showing that their all-metal designs are similar enough to those on the market that they don't have to submit clinical studies. In a letter submitted to the FDA on April 18, the American Association for Justice, a plaintiff lawyers' industry group, said it supported the agency's switch to the more intensive approval process for metal-on-metal hips. However, the group expressed concern that when a device is approved through the alternative process, known as "premarket approval," consumers could lose the ability to sue the device maker in court over alleged injuries. "It would be absolutely unfair . . . if these claims all of a sudden were thrown into jeopardy solely because the government determined that the products needed additional safety testing before being marketed to consumers again," wrote Mary Alice McLarty, the president of the American Association for Justice, in the letter to the FDA. The association said it was worried that manufacturers would be able to use to their advantage a 2008 Supreme Court case, Riegel v. Medtronic, which found that most personal injury claims against a device approved through the rigorous premarket approval process are barred by federal law. 'Unanswered Questions' The plaintiff lawyers' group cautioned in the letter that a manufacturer could obtain premarket approval for an existing all- metal hip implant, and then use that to shield itself from liability -- even for alleged injuries that occurred before the product met the heightened safety test. The organization urged the FDA to include language in its final rule that would prevent manufacturers from attempting to use premarket approval retroactively to defeat personal injury claims that originated before the process changes. Peter Goss, a lawyer at Blackwell Burke who represents medical device makers in product liability suits, said manufacturers could argue that if a product already on the market obtains heightened FDA clearance, then it has been proven safe, and past claims should be pre-empted. "But that's going to be a very difficult argument to make from a legal standpoint, just because of the timing," Mr. Goss said. Erica Jefferson, a spokeswoman for the FDA, declined to comment on the association's request or whether the agency would prevent manufacturers from using the new approval process to thwart past legal claims. She said the agency plans to finalize the proposed order within a year, at which point the manufacturers would have 90 days to submit clinical data showing their safety and effectiveness. Spokeswomen for Johnson & Johnson unit DePuy and Wright Medical Group, both of which continue to make all-metal hip implants, declined to comment on whether they would undertake the expensive premarket approval process or simply stop selling the products. Julie Tracy, the spokeswoman for Wright Medical Group, said sales of the all-metal products account for less than 0.5 percent of Wright's annual revenues. Even if the plaintiffs' group does persuade the FDA to add language preventing manufacturers from using the rule change as a shield to deflect past legal claims, that language may not carry much legal weight, said Jeffrey Shapiro, a lawyer at Hyman Phelps & McNamara who represents medical device companies before the FDA. "I don't know that the courts would defer to that" in deciding whether past claims are pre-empted, Mr. Shapiro said. "There are a lot of unanswered questions here." * Lawyers Can Seek Legal Fees in Late-Filed Vaccine Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers who file claims on behalf of clients alleging injury from a vaccine may recover their legal fees even if the claim is dismissed as untimely, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 20. The high court found Dr. Melissa Cloer, who says she developed multiple sclerosis from three hepatitis-B vaccinations, can seek attorneys' fees under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, even though she filed her claims too late to recover payment for her alleged injuries. Congress established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in 1986 in an effort to provide a cost-effective process for resolving vaccine-injury claims outside of tort litigation and to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines. Successful claims are paid out of a federal trust fund that comes from a tax levied on every dose of vaccine. After receiving three Hepatitis-B vaccinations between 1996 and 1997, Dr. Cloer developed a tingling and numbness in one arm. The numbness gradually spread, and she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2003. The next year, Dr. Cloer learned about a link between the vaccine and multiple sclerosis, leading her to file a claim with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2005. Too Long A Wait The chief special master of the court dismissed Dr. Cloer's petition, finding that she had waited too long to file her claim since her first symptoms appeared in 1997. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which created the program, requires petitions to be filed within 36 months of the initial symptoms. Dr. Cloer appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the chief special master, concluding that the 36-month clock only started running when the medical community at large recognized a link between the vaccine and the injury. But hearing the case en banc, the full Federal Circuit disagreed, saying the window started with the onset of the symptom. Even though Dr. Cloer missed the deadline, she asked the Federal Circuit to allow her to seek $119,000 from the program to cover her lawyers' fees. The Federal Circuit found that Dr. Cloer could recover the fees, provided her claim was brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis, and the Supreme Court agreed. "If Congress had intended to limit fee awards to timely petitions, it could easily have done so," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court. Instead, the law allows courts to award attorneys' fees for unsuccessful petitions "brought in good faith and for which there was a reasonable basis," she wrote. In opposing Dr. Cloer's request for fees, the Justice Department argued that allowing fees for unsuccessful claims would trigger a flood of untimely lawsuits, as lawyers would take on cases after the expiration of the 36-month window in the hope of recovering fees. But the high court found the government's fear "exaggerated." Sotomayor: Faith in Attorneys "This argument is premised on the assumption that in the pursuit of fees, attorneys will choose to bring claims lacking good faith or a reasonable basis in derogation of their ethical duties. There is no basis for such an assumption," Judge Sotomayor wrote. Six other justices joined Sotomayor's opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas signed on to most of the opinion, but declined to join one section, which found that the government's position contradicted one goal of the program -- to encourage lawyers to represent clients who may have difficulty distinguishing a vaccine-related injury from an unrelated ailment. Robert Fishman, who represented Cloer, said the decision will make it easier for people injured by vaccines to find a lawyer to represent them and is unlikely to trigger a flood of frivolous claims to be filed under the vaccine act. "I wouldn't really expect to see much more than a marginal increase," he said. Roughly 300 to 400 petitions are filed each year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Those numbers spiked above 2,500 in 2003, with media attention on the link between vaccines and autism. Those autism petitions have been rejected, because the alleged link was unsubstantiated, said Fishman. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The case is Sebelius v. Cloer, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-236. For Sebelius: Assistant to the Solicitor General Benjamin Horwich. For Cloer: Robert Fishman of Ridley McGreevy & Winocur; Mari Bush of Kaye and Bush. * Medical Malpractice Payouts Only 0.05% of U.S. Healthcare Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters, reports that large medical malpractice payouts by doctors account for only a fraction of the nation's healthcare expenditures, according to a recent study by a group of researchers at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Using the National Practitioner Data Bank, a government database that lists all paid medical malpractice claims, the Hopkins' researchers looked at all awards over $1 million, so-called "catastrophic" payouts by U.S. doctors, between 2004 and 2010. Their findings, published in the Journal for Healthcare Quality, showed that catastrophic payouts tended to attract the most attention from the public, media and tort reform advocates, but that they accounted for an insignificant percentage of healthcare expenditures. The high payouts added up to roughly $1.4 billion a year, or .05 percent of U.S. healthcare expenditures, the study found. "The real problem is that far too many tests and procedures are being performed in the name of defensive medicine, as physicians fear they could be sued if they don't order them," said Marty Makary, one of the researchers on the study and an associate professor of surgery and health policy at Johns Hopkins. Mr. Makary said that the costs of unnecessary services can run upwards of $60 billion a year. Instead of trying to impose medical malpractice caps, which have only a "minimal impact" on overall healthcare expenditures, tort reform efforts should focus on defining the so-called "standard of care" that doctors are measured against in medical malpractice cases, Mr. Makary said. That standard should focus less on what is the practice of the average doctor and rather on what is reasonable. 'Very Vague' Standard Christopher Robinette, a tort law professor at Widener Law School, said the legal standard of care in medical malpractice cases is "very vague" about whether a doctor acted reasonably. "It leaves a lot of room for interpretation, so doctors may feel driven to engage in tests that may not be required," he said. The uncertainty can also lead to drawn-out legal battles, with the average medical malpractice case lasting from four to six years. Tort reform efforts generally have not focused on the doctor's standard of care, said Mr. Robinette. Some states, such as Georgia, have passed legislation requiring plaintiffs in malpractice cases against emergency room physicians to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that the doctor was grossly negligent. In addition to the cost findings, the study also reported that many of the high payouts involved injuries to infants and newborns. The odds of a large award also increase if a patient suffers quadriplegia, brain damage or needs lifelong care, or when the claim results from a problem with anesthesia, the researchers found. A physicians' number of years in practice did not affect the likelihood of a catastrophic payment, the study found. It wasn't the new or the senior doctors but rather the ones in between who tended to see the most patients that had the most high payouts, said Mr. Makary. The finding that liability was not tied to length of experience could be fodder for tort reform proponents, said Mr. Robinette, as evidence that the system may be more random than rational. * Plaintiffs in Patent MDLs Oppose Consolidation Motions -------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that one of the key anti-troll elements of the America Invents Act of 2011 was the patent reform law's restrictions on joinder. After September 2011, patent owners could not file complaints that named multiple, otherwise unrelated defendants who happened to make use of the same IP. The idea was to make it more expensive for plaintiffs to bring and litigate patent suits, to prevent forum shopping and to limit trolls' leverage. Conventional wisdom was that the new law's joinder restrictions were going to lead to an uptick in requests for the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate cases for pretrial proceedings. If plaintiffs could persuade the JPMDL to consolidate cases for pretrial proceedings - especially if they could direct consolidated litigation to sympathetic judges -- they could take some of the sting out of joinder restrictions. As usual, reality is more complicated. Prompted by a squib about a patent MDL at the Gibbons blog IP Law Alert, Thomson Reuters' Ms. Frankel went to the JPMDL's site to see if, in fact, plaintiffs have flocked to the panel since patent reform. Here's what she found. There are 19 active MDLs categorized as patent matters. Three of them are Hatch-Waxman litigation between brand and generic drugmakers, so I eliminated them from additional consideration. Of the remaining 16 consolidated proceedings, five preceded the effective date of the patent reform law. So in the 15 months since AIA, the MDL panel has consolidated 11 patent matters. That seems to be a higher rate for consolidating patent litigation than we saw before patent reform, but the JPMDL still considers far more product liability, consumer and antitrust matters than patent litigation. And interestingly, it was defendants who moved for pretrial consolidation in seven of the 11 patent MDLs. Plaintiffs opposed the consolidation motions in all of those cases. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, brought four of the transfer motions, and defendants opposed all of them. In two of the four plaintiffs' MDL attempts, patent holders requested that their cases be consolidated in the Eastern District of Texas, widely reckoned to be a plaintiff- friendly jurisdiction (otherwise known as a troll haven). The JPMDL agreed to consolidate both litigations but sent the matters to judges in other districts. The one patent MDL transferred to a judge in the Eastern District of Texas, In re Parallel Networks, was consolidated on a motion by defendants that was opposed by the plaintiff. The unifying theme of these patent MDLs, in other words, is that there isn't one, at least not yet. A few patent holders seem to believe they're better off if the JPMDL consolidates their cases, especially in their favored district, but there hasn't exactly been a rush to the panel by patent plaintiffs. Defendants are almost twice as likely as their opponents to request MDL consolidation, but when plaintiffs suggest it they're opposed. (That could be, of course, because defendants don't like the venue recommended by the plaintiffs.) The MDL panel, meanwhile, seems inclined to consolidate patent cases in the post-AIA reform era, but not if there's opposition from both plaintiffs and some defendants, as in the ArrivalStar matter in 2011. And don't expect the panel simply to rubber-stamp your suggestion for a presiding judge. Defense lawyer Robert Stier of Pierce Atwood argued for consolidation in one of the two patent MDLs established last month. His clients -- banks sued for allegedly infringing a patent that's part of ATM systems -- successfully moved for transfer to U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson of Delaware, who has previously found a related patent asserted by the same plaintiff to be invalid. (As you might expect in those circumstances, the patent holder opposed the MDL.) Mr. Stier told me that pretrial MDL consolidation is different from the rampant joinder eliminated by the patent reform law. For one thing, plaintiffs don't control the venue in MDL proceedings. The MDL panel picks a presiding judge, after both sides have had a say. And MDLs are only consolidated for pretrial proceedings so plaintiffs don't have the leverage they used to have when they'd bring multidefendant cases before East Texas judges known for speeding up discovery and rushing cases to trial before sympathetic juries. By contrast, Mr. Stier said, the MDL process brings order to the process of claims construction by putting that crucial pretrial determination before a single judge. That way, plaintiffs lose the chance to pick off defendants who don't want to expend the cost of litigation. "The nuisance value of the cases goes down," Mr. Stier said. Plaintiffs' lawyer Marc Fenster of Russ August & Kabat, who represents IP owners in the newly ordered NeuroGrafix patent MDL, told me that patent holders haven't made extensive use of the MDL process because they've figured out other ways to litigate groups of cases before a single judge. (The NeuroGrafix plaintiffs, for the record, opposed defendants' MDL motion, but mostly, Mr. Fenster told me, because the patent holders didn't want their cases to be transferred to the judge requested by defendants.) MDLs only come into play when cases are being litigated in more than one federal district. So some plaintiffs have incorporated in Delaware and sued there, where lots of patent defendants are also incorporated. The Delaware courts, Mr. Fenster said, make a practice of assigning related patent cases to the same judge, so, effectively, patent plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of litigating in a single proceeding. Indeed, another client of Mr. Fenster's firm, Parallel Iron, recently beat back an attempt by the defendant EMC to move its case from Delaware to Massachusetts, where EMC is headquartered. Parallel Iron is a non-practicing entity that sued more than a dozen companies over the same patent it asserted against EMC. All of the cases are proceeding before U.S. District Judge Gregory Sheet in Delaware. And according to a transcript of a hearing on April 25, that's where EMC's case will stay. Even if Parallel's motive in setting up shop in Delaware was a bit suspect, the judge said, it doesn't promote efficiency to send one case to Massachusetts and litigate 15 others in Delaware. Patent plaintiffs -- particularly those whose business model is to assert IP rights rather than make products -- are all about streamlining the litigation process yet proceeding against as many defendants as possible. In the post-AIA era, that sometimes means filing multiple complaints in jurisdictions such as East Texas and Delaware. And sometimes, Mr. Fenster said, it means asking for consolidation through the MDL process. "It's not universally pro- defendant," he told me. "I've seen plaintiffs use MDLs to parallel the efficiency they used to achieve through joinder." * Portable Heaters, Bicycle Forks Among Recalled Products --------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a line of portable heaters that can overheat and cause a fire are among recently recalled consumer products. Others include defective bicycle forks and riding lawn mowers. Here's a more detailed look: PORTABLE HEATERS DETAILS: Optimus Tower Quartz heaters. The front section of the top has the brand name Optimus, a power light, a caution light and two dials. One dial turns the heater on or off and selects the power of either 750 watts or 1500 watts. The other control knob selects the heat range between high and low. The rear section of the top has fire, high temperature, and shock warnings and diagrams of the heater being used in 750 watt mode and 1500 watt mode. Model number "H-5232" is on a silver sticker on the bottom of the heater below the words "Optimus" and "Quartz Heater." They were sold at Family Dollar Stores from September 2012 through December 2012. WHY: They can overheat, posing a fire hazard. INCIDENTS: 10 reports of overheating, including some reports of temperature knobs melting. The firm has not received reports of injury, fire or property damage. HOW MANY: About 19,640. FOR MORE: Call Family Dollar Stores at 800-547-0359 or visit www.familydollar.com, then click on Product Recalls in the Help section at the bottom of the page. BICYCLE FORKS DETAILS: Surly Pugsley bicycle forks, made by Aprebic Industry Co. Ltd., of Taiwan, a wholly-owned brand of Quality Bicycle Products Inc. The recall involves 100mm and 135mm bicycle forks made of tubular chromoly steel. The 100mm bicycle forks were sold individually only. They are black, have triple water bottle mounts on each side, rack/fender mounts on the top and bottom and have date code 2012 03 20 stamped on the steerer tube. "Surly" is printed on both legs of the fork. "Pugsley" is printed on the fork's packaging and on the frame of bikes with the recalled forks. The 135mm forks are black, yellow or red and are stamped with date code 2012 06 19 on the steerer tube. Model number FK3175, FK3181 or FK0706 is printed on the packaging for forks sold individually. Surly Pugsley bicycle models FM3110-3114, FM3175-79, BK3110-14 and BK3175-79 were sold with the recalled forks as original equipment. The bicycle's model number is printed on the bicycle's packaging. They were sold from May 2012 through February 2013. WHY: The bicycle fork can bend above the disc brake mount, posing a fall hazard to the rider. INCIDENTS: One report of a fork bending above the disc brake mount. No injuries have been reported. HOW MANY: About 975. FOR MORE: Call Surly Bikes at 877-946-9333 or visit www.surlybikes.com and click on the Safety Recall button for more information. RIDING LAWN MOWERS DETAILS: 2012 and 2013 Toro Z Master Commercial 2000 Series ZRT riding mowers. The mowers are red and black. "Toro" and "2000 Series" are printed on the side and "Z Master Commercial" on the front of the mowers. When viewed from the operator's seat, the model and serial numbers are on a metal plate located at the front of the mower, below the seat, on the right-hand side. The following models and corresponding serial numbers are included in this recall: model number 74141 with serial numbers ranging from 312000101 to 312000784 and 313000101 to 313000364; model number 74143 with serial numbers ranging from 312000101 to 312000881 and 313000101 to 313000432; and model number 74145 with serial numbers ranging from 312000101 to 312001178 and 313000101 to 313000443. They were sold at Toro dealers nationwide from January 2012 through April 2013. WHY: The idler pulley can rub against the mower's fuel tank, posing a fire hazard. INCIDENTS: Six reports of incidents. No injuries have been reported. HOW MANY: About 3,700 in the U.S. and 60 in Canada. About 2,600 units were previously recalled in the U.S. and 30 in Canada in November 2012. FOR MORE: Call Toro at 855-493-0090 or visit www.toro.com and click on Product Recall Information on the bottom right-hand side of the page for more information. CONVECTION HEATERS DETAILS: Touch Point portable baseboard convection heaters made by Foshan Guanmei Electrical Co. with number model BBC-1500 and date code 0611. "Touch Point" can be found on the front of the product and the model and date code can be found on a silver sticker on the back side of the product. The heaters were made in June 2011 and sold at Meijer stores from September 2011 through February 2013. WHY: The heaters can overheat, posing a fire hazard. INCIDENTS: Two reports of overheating, including one report of a fire that resulted in minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. HOW MANY: About 4,560. FOR MORE: Call Meijer at 800-927-8699 or visit www.meijer.com and click on Product Recalls under the Help section. 2013-05-10 20:15:41 GMT Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ CenterPoint Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuits filed by individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries have been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's subsidiaries. CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. In 2004 and early 2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to a company which is now an affiliate of NRG. Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the generating business from CenterPoint Energy and its sale of that business, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by the NRG affiliate, but CenterPoint Energy has agreed to continue to defend those claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by CenterPoint Energy, subject to reimbursement of the costs of that defense by the NRG affiliate. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CenterPoint Energy intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not consider to have merit and, based on its experience to date, does not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on CenterPoint Energy's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company whose indirect wholly owned subsidiaries include CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston), which engages in the electric transmission and distribution business in a 5,000-square mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast, which includes the city of Houston, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp. and, together with its subsidiaries, CERC), which owns and operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. Subsidiaries of CERC Corp. own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and provide ancillary services. The Company operates in six business segments: Electric Transmission & Distribution, Natural Gas Distribution, Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate Pipelines, Field Services and Other Operations. Effective November 1, 2011, CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, announced that it acquired Asgard Energy, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Had 248 Fibro Cases ------------------------------------------------------- Midwest Generation, LLC, had approximately 248 asbestos cases that had not been settled and dismissed, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. Midwest Generation entered into a supplemental agreement with Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on February 20, 2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of Midwest Generation's reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement. Under this supplemental agreement, Midwest Generation agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50% of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs and agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with future asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement. The obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum liability. The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms (subject to the right of either party to terminate); pursuant to the automatic renewal provision, the supplemental agreement has been extended until February 2014. There were approximately 248 cases for which Midwest Generation was potentially liable that had not been settled and dismissed at March 31, 2013. Midwest Generation had $53 million recorded in LSTC at March 31, 2013 related to this contractual indemnity. Midwest Generation, LLC sells wholesale electricity to markets in the Midwest. The independent power producer has a generating capacity of almost 5,480 MW, primarily from its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois (5,172 MW); it also oversees the operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants which have 305 MW of capacity. Affiliate Edison Mission Marketing and Trading acts as a conduit for Midwest Generation's wholesale energy activities. Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Edison International unit Edison Mission Midwest Holdings Co. In 2010 regional transmission organization PJM Interconnection accounted for 79% of the company's revenues. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Continues to Defend 30 Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Noble Corporation continues to defend 30 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company states: "We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At March 31, 2013, there were 30 asbestos related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Noble Corporation (Noble) is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling services with its fleet of 79 mobile offshore drilling units globally. It also owns one floating production storage and offloading unit (FPSO) located globally. As of December 31, 2012, its fleet consisted of 14 semisubmersibles, 14 drillships, 49 jackups and two submersibles, including 11 units under construction, including five drillships and six jackups. As of February 7, 2013, approximately 85% of its fleet was located outside the United States in areas, which included Mexico, Brazil, the North Sea, the Mediterranean, West Africa, the Middle East, India and Australia. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland & Unit Had 87,000 PI Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. and its affiliate had 87,000 open claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. Ashland and Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland that was acquired in 2009, have liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given various assumptions, Ashland retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. (HR&A). The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates, disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and litigation defense. The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared to the results of previously conducted third party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population expected to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in resolving those claims. The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation, a former subsidiary. The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly from period to period. For the six months ended March 31, 2013, there were 66,000 open claims for Ashland. From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non- discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of HR&A. During the most recent annual update of this estimate, completed during the June 2012 quarter, it was determined that the liability for asbestos claims should be increased by $11 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $505 million at March 31, 2013 compared to $522 million at September 30, 2012. Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently being accessed. As a result, increases in the asbestos reserve have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. The amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage. For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. Approximately 69% of the estimated receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of March 31, 2013. The remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London insurance companies, which generally have lower credit quality ratings, and from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy obligations have been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity. Ashland discounts this piece of the receivable based upon the projected timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless likely settlement amounts can be determined. During the December 2011 quarter, Ashland received $7 million in cash after reaching a settlement with certain insolvent London market insurance companies. The cash received from this settlement during the prior period was recognized as an after-tax gain of $6 million within discontinued operations of the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income since Ashland's policy is to not record asbestos receivables for any carriers that are insolvent. In October 2012, Ashland initiated arbitration proceedings against Underwriters at Lloyd's and certain Chartis (AIG member) companies seeking to enforce these insurers' contractual obligations to provide indemnity for asbestos liabilities and defense costs under existing coverage-in-place agreements. In addition, Ashland has initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court against certain Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity Company and Resolute Management Inc.) on grounds that these Berkshire entities have wrongfully interfered with Underwriters' and Chartis' performance of their respective contractual obligations to provide asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delay certain claim payments. While Ashland anticipates its position will be supported by the proceedings, an adverse resolution of these proceedings could have a significant effect on the timing of loss reimbursement and the amount of Ashland's recorded insurance receivables from these insurers. At March 31, 2013, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to $416 million, of which $68 million relates to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $423 million at September 30, 2012. During the June 2012 quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve, and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers, was completed. This model update resulted in an additional $19 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries. Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly from period to period. For the six months ended March 31, 2013, there were 21,000 open claims for Hercules. From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non- discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of HR&A. During the most recent annual update of this estimate, completed during the June 2012 quarter, it was determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos related claims should be increased by $30 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $306 million at March 31, 2013 compared to $320 million at September 30, 2012. For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain reimbursements pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements with insurance carriers exist. As a result, increases in the asbestos reserve are partially offset by probable insurance recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. The estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of March 31, 2013. As of March 31, 2013 and September 30, 2012, the receivables from insurers amounted to $55 million and $56 million, respectively. As previously mentioned, during the June 2012 quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed. This model update caused a $9 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries. Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that might be received, other variables include the type and severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost models was developed. These models are based on national studies that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos- related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and legal defense costs, as well as other variables mentioned previously. Ashland has currently estimated in various models ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as approximately $830 million for the Ashland asbestos- related litigation and approximately $500 million for the Hercules asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.3 billion in the aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected in the various models. If actual experience is worse than projected, relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to resolve those claims, Ashland may need to further increase the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these increases could be material over time. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31, 2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions, LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013, JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $752.1MM Exposure at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation recorded a net asbestos exposure of $752.1 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain of the Company's products sold prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds Pump product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a large majority of claims pending against the Company have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. The Company's experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the Company. The Company states: "We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to a number of factors. As of March 31, 2013, we have recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of $1,338.7 million, including expected legal fees, and an associated asset of $586.6 which represents estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of $752.1 million." ITT Corporation is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered critical components and customized technology solutions for the energy, transportation, and industrial markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 64,000 Pending Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corporation had 64,000 pending active claims alleging personal injury claims due to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold by us or our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non- friable. As of March 31, 2013, there were 64 thousand pending active claims against ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a large majority of claims pending against the Company have been placed on inactive dockets (including in Mississippi) because the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims are dismissed without any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate. Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently, the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state a specific claim amount. After filing of the complaint, the plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Any predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos claims filed beyond the next 10 years which could be material to the financial statements, we do not believe there is a reasonable basis for estimating those costs at this time. The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect management's best estimate of future events. However, future events affecting the key factors and other variables for either the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is not possible to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending and unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that future events affecting the key factors and other variables within the next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyond the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. ITT Corporation is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered critical components and customized technology solutions for the energy, transportation, and industrial markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Curtiss-Wright Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company has been named in a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos. To date, the Corporation has not been found liable for or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case. The Company believes its minimal use of asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. The Company maintains insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and believes adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability. Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of engineered, technologically advanced products and services. It designs and manufactures engineered, advanced technologies that perform critical functions in demanding conditions in the defense, power generation, oil and gas, commercial aerospace, and general industrial markets. It operates through three segments: Flow Control, Motion Control, and Metal Treatment. Its principal manufacturing facilities are located in the United States in California, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and internationally in Canada and the United Kingdom. In January 2013, it acquired Exlar Corporation. In January 2013, it acquired the assets of F.W. Gartner Thermal Spraying, Ltd. In March 2013, it completed the acquisition of 100% interest of Phonix Holding GmbH. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Unit Has $134MM Gross Reserves at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of American International Group, Inc., has asbestos reserves relating to foreign risks written by non-U.S. entities of $134 million gross and $111 million net as of March 31, 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. As described more fully in the 2012 Annual Report, AIG's reserves relating to asbestos and environmental claims reflect a comprehensive ground-up analysis performed periodically. In the first quarter of 2013, a minor amount of incurred loss pertaining to the asbestos loss reserve discount was recognized. AIG Property Casualty has asbestos reserves relating to foreign risks written by non-U.S. entities of $134 million gross and $111 million net as of March 31, 2013. The asbestos reserves relating to non-U.S. risks written by non-U.S. entities were $140 million gross and $116 million net as of December 31, 2012. American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is an international insurance company, serving customers in more than 130 countries. AIG companies serve commercial, institutional and individual customers through property-casualty networks of any insurer. In addition, AIG companies are providers of life insurance and retirement services. AIG's segments include Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group (SunAmerica), Aircraft Leasing and Other Operations. On February 1, 2011 and August 18, 2011, it divested its Japan-based life insurance subsidiaries, AIG Star Life Insurance Company Ltd. (AIG Star) and AIG Edison Life Insurance Company, and Nan Shan Life Insurance Company, Ltd. (Nan Shan). On October 7, 2011, ILFC completed the acquisition of AeroTurbine. AeroTurbine is a providers of aircraft engines, aircraft and engine parts and supply chain solutions. On December 3, 2012, the Company's life and retirement business, AIG Life and Retirement, acquired Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Continues to Defend PI Suits -------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. As of March 31, 2013, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,095 individual claimants compared to approximately 2,060 individual claimants, with actions pending at December 31, 2012. The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than its historical experience. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The ninth case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the Court at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the Court's legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. The plaintiffs appealed, but in February 2012 the California Court of Appeals granted the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the appeal. The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by the unimpaired. As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended its complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. While the case has been inactive since the fourth quarter of 2007, the court held a case management conference in March 2011, but no further activity has occurred in the case since that conference. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the minimal activity in this case and the fact that the complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault a jury allocates to each defendant if a case is ultimately tried. The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii) apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g., whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend against current and future claims. Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii) the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv) changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers. As a result of the greater cost of resolving claims of persons with more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in the first quarter of 2013 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $13 million. In the first quarter of 2013, the Company made payments for fees and settlements of $7 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. As of March 31, 2013, the Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $132 million (excluding Aearo accruals). The Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, particularly with respect to the Company's respiratory products that themselves did not contain any harmful materials, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of liabilities. 3M Company is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M manages its operations in five operating business segments: Industrial; Safety and Graphics; Electronics and Energy; Health Care; and Consumer. From a geographic perspective, any references to EMEA refer to Europe, Middle East and Africa on a combined basis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has $80MM Receivables for Insurance --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company has $80 million receivable for insurance recoveries related to respirator mask/asbestos litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. As of March 31, 2013, the Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $80 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of its numerous policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of the claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has concluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including (i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii) the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance coverage. The difference between the accrued liability and insurance receivable represents in part the time delay between payment of claims on the one hand and receipt of insurance reimbursements on the other hand. Because of the lag time between settlement and payment of a claim, no meaningful conclusions may be drawn from quarterly or annual changes in the amount of receivables for expected insurance recoveries or changes in the number of claimants. As previously reported, on January 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. -- both part of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, pending in the District Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeks declaratory judgment regarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers. The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company's insurers. This action is similar in nature to an action filed in 1994 with respect to breast implant coverage, which ultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of 2003 that was largely in the Company's favor. The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that names some additional insurers and deletes others. The plaintiffs, Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co., as well as a significant number of the insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been dismissed because of settlements they have reached with 3M regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit. Trial is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2013. During the first quarter of 2013, the Company received payments of $8 million from settlements with insurers. 3M Company is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M manages its operations in five operating business segments: Industrial; Safety and Graphics; Electronics and Energy; Health Care; and Consumer. From a geographic perspective, any references to EMEA refer to Europe, Middle East and Africa on a combined basis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Unit Records $28MM Liability -------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, through its subsidiary, Aero Holding Corp., recorded $28 million estimate of probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to asbestos- and silica- related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies ("Aero"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. As of March 31, 2013, Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. As of March 31, 2013, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, has recorded $28 million as the best estimate of the probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters. In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement, including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers' pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract. Fact discovery in the first phase of the case is scheduled to conclude in May 2013. Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants, (viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group including exhaustion of available coverage limits, (ix) the outcome of pending insurance coverage litigation among certain other members of the Payor Group and their respective insurers, and/or (x) a determination that the interpretation of the contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the developments were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than the amount accrued. Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group, and the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established. 3M Company is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M manages its operations in five operating business segments: Industrial; Safety and Graphics; Electronics and Energy; Health Care; and Consumer. From a geographic perspective, any references to EMEA refer to Europe, Middle East and Africa on a combined basis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,400 Pending Exposure Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had approximately 1,400 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past several decades and through March 31, 2013, we have been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving approximately 5,300 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately 1,400 claims were pending and 3,900 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and through March 31, 2013, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of approximately one thousand dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not believe that any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial position or cash flow, and, at March 31, 2013, we had approximately $2,000 accrued for liability and related expenses. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies for the years in question." Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an energy infrastructure focused company and a provider of government services. The Company's segments include Technology; Engineering, Construction and Maintenance; Fabrication Services, and Government Solutions. Its Technology segment provides licensed process technologies, catalysts, specialized equipment and engineered products. Engineering, Construction and Maintenance provides engineering, procurement, fabrication and construction of energy infrastructure facilities, as well as comprehensive and integrated maintenance services. Fabrication Services provides piping solutions and storage tanks and vessels for the oil and gas, water and wastewater, mining and power generation industries. Government Solutions leads programs and projects, including design-build infrastructure projects, for federal, state and local governments. On February 13, 2013, it acquired The Shaw Group Inc. (Shaw). ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $2.06B Liability as of March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. recorded $2.065 billion in asbestos-related liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. Grace is a defendant in property damage and personal injury lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-containing products. As of the Filing Date, Grace was a defendant in 65,656 asbestos- related lawsuits, 17 involving claims for property damage (one of which has since been dismissed), and the remainder involving 129,191 claims for personal injury. Due to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing new lawsuits against the Debtors. Grace's obligations with respect to present and future asbestos claims will be determined through the Chapter 11 process. The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected buildings. Various factors can affect the merit and value of PD Claims, including legal defenses, product identification, the amount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and use of the building, the legal status of the claimant, the jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the case is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, if necessary. Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved thousands of buildings) filed prior to the Filing Date, 16 remain unresolved. Eight cases relate to ZAI and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve ZAI). Approximately 4,400 additional PD claims were filed prior to the March 31, 2003, claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court. (The March 31, 2003, claims bar date did not apply to ZAI claims.) Grace objected to virtually all PD claims on a number of legal and factual bases. As of March 31, 2013, approximately 430 PD Claims subject to the March 31, 2003, claims bar date remain outstanding. The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering approximately 410 of such claims for an aggregate allowed amount of $151.7 million. Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of all such insulation. The plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per home. As a result of the Filing, all of these cases have been stayed. Based on Grace's investigation of the claims described in these lawsuits, and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and others, Grace believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for its intended purpose and poses little or no threat to human health. The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's position on the safety of ZAI. In December 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI. In the event the Joint Plan does not become effective, the ZAI claimants have reserved their right to appeal such opinion and order if and when it becomes a final order. At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than October 31, 2008. Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the October 31, 2008, claims bar date, and as of March 31, 2013, an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed. Under the Canadian ZAI Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD Claims filed before December 31, 2009, would be eligible to seek compensation from the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund. Approximately 13,100 Canadian ZAI PD Claims were filed by December 31, 2009. In November 2008, the Debtors, the Putative Class Counsel to the U.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the PD FCR, and the Equity Committee reached an agreement designed to resolve all present and future U.S. ZAI PD Claims. The terms of the U.S. and Canadian ZAI agreements in principle have been incorporated into the terms of the Joint Plan and related documents. Upon the occurrence of the effective date under the Joint Plan, all pending and future PD Claims would be channeled for resolution to the PD Trust. PD Claims other than U.S. and Canadian ZAI PD Claims would be litigated in the Bankruptcy Court or a U.S. District Court, including all claims and defenses that would have been available to the parties prior to the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases as well as any defenses based on the March 31, 2003, claims bar date. Any claims determined to be allowed claims would be paid in cash by the PD Trust. Grace would be obligated to fund the PD Trust every six months in an amount sufficient to enable the PD Trust to pay all such allowed claims and Trust-related expenses. All allowed U.S. ZAI PD Claims would be paid by the PD Trust from the ZAI PD account and all allowed Canadian ZAI PD Claims would be paid by the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund. Grace would have no liability or obligation for asbestos-related ZAI PD claims, except for its obligations to fund the PD Trust's ZAI PD account. Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effects from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured by Grace. Historically, Grace's cost to resolve such claims has been influenced by numerous variables, including the nature of the disease alleged, product identification, proof of exposure to a Grace product, negotiation factors, the solvency of other former producers of asbestos-containing products, cross- claims by co-defendants, the rate at which new claims are filed, the jurisdiction in which the claims are filed, and the defense and disposition costs associated with these claims. As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against Grace. Grace believes that a substantial number of additional PI Claims would have been received between the Filing Date and March 31, 2013, had such PI Claims not been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court entered a case management order for estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement. Upon the occurrence of the effective date under the Joint Plan, all pending and future asbestos-related personal injury claims would be channeled for resolution to the PI Trust and Grace would have no liability or obligation for asbestos-related personal injury claims, except for its obligations to fund the PI Trust. The recorded asbestos-related liability as of March 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012, was $2,065.0 million and is included in "liabilities subject to compromise" in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Grace increased its asbestos-related liability by $365.0 million in the 2012 fourth quarter to reflect an updated estimate of the value of the consideration payable to the PI Trust and the PD Trust (the "Trusts") under the Joint Plan, assuming emergence from bankruptcy at the end of 2013. Grace reached an agreement in October 2012 to cash settle the warrant to be issued to the PI Trust at emergence. The components of the consideration payable to the Trusts under the Joint Plan are as follows: * The warrant to acquire 10 million shares of the Company's common stock for $17.00 per share, which will be recorded at fair value on the effective date of the Joint Plan. Under the agreement to cash settle the warrant, the warrant will have a value between $375 million and $490 million. Based on the current trading range of Company common stock and other valuation factors, Grace estimates the value of the warrant at emergence will be the maximum value of $490 million. * The deferred payment obligation of $110 million per year for five years beginning January 2, 2019, and of $100 million per year for ten years beginning January 2, 2024, which will be recorded at fair value on the effective date of the Joint Plan. Grace estimates the fair value of the deferred payment obligation to be $547 million at emergence. The value of the deferred payment obligation is affected by (i) interest rates; (ii) the Company's credit standing and the payment period of the deferred payments; (iii) restrictive covenants and terms of the Company's other credit facilities; (iv) assessment of the risk of a default, which if default were to occur would require Grace to issue shares of Company common stock; and (v) the subordination provisions of the deferred payment agreement. * The cash payable by Grace to fund the PI and PD Trusts, which will be recorded at fair value on the effective date of the Joint Plan. Grace estimates the fair value of these payments to be $528 million at emergence. * Proceeds with respect to all of Grace's insurance policies that provide coverage for asbestos-related claims would be transferred to the PI Trust under the Joint Plan. The recorded asbestos- related insurance receivable and related liability of $500.0 million at March 31, 2013, is within the reasonable range of possible valuations of these policies at emergence. Grace periodically evaluates the recorded amount of its asbestos- related liability and may further adjust the liability prior to the effective date of the Joint Plan if it determines that the currently recorded amount no longer represents a reasonable estimate of the value of the consideration payable to the Trusts under the Joint Plan. The recorded amount of the asbestos-related liabilities represents a reasonable estimate of the value of the consideration payable to the PI Trust and the PD Trust based on the range of reasonable valuations for the warrant, deferred payment obligations and other consideration payable to the PI Trust and the PD Trust under the Joint Plan as of March 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012. The ultimate cost of settling the asbestos-related liability will be based on the value of the consideration transferred to the Trusts at emergence and will vary from the current estimate. Appeals have been filed in the Third Circuit challenging the District Court order confirming the Joint Plan. If any such appeals are resolved adversely to Grace and the other Joint Plan proponents, and if the Joint Plan cannot be amended to address any deficiencies identified by the Third Circuit in a manner satisfactory to Grace and the other Joint Plan proponents, the Debtors would expect to resume the estimation trial, which was suspended in April 2008 due to the PI Settlement, to determine the amount of its asbestos-related liabilities. Through the PI Claim estimation process and the continued adjudication of PD Claims, Grace would seek to demonstrate that most claims have no value because they fail to establish any significant property damage, health impairment or occupational exposure to asbestos from Grace's operations or products. If the Bankruptcy Court agreed with Grace's position on the number of, and the amounts to be paid in respect of, allowed PI Claims and PD Claims, then Grace believes that the value of its asbestos-related liability could be lower than the recorded amount. However, this outcome would be highly uncertain and would depend on a number of Bankruptcy Court rulings favorable to Grace's position. Conversely, the PI and PD Committees and the PI FCR have asserted that Grace's asbestos- related liabilities are substantially higher than the recorded amount, and in fact are in excess of Grace's business value. If the Bankruptcy Court accepted the position of the PI and PD Committees and the PI FCR, then any plan of reorganization likely would result in the loss of all or substantially all equity value by current shareholders. Grace holds insurance policies that provide coverage for 1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been commercially available to Grace. Pursuant to the Joint Plan, proceeds with respect to all of Grace's insurance policies that provide coverage for asbestos-related claims would be transferred to the PI Trust. For each insurance year, Grace's coverage consists of both primary and excess coverage. With one exception, coverage disputes regarding Grace's primary insurance policies have been settled, and those settlement amounts have been paid in full. Grace has entered into settlement agreements, which are dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, with underwriters of a portion of Grace's insurance coverage, which includes the unsettled primary coverage. Under most of these agreements, the insurers have agreed, subject to certain conditions, to pay to the PI Trust (directly or through an escrow arrangement) an aggregate of $395.2 million in respect of coverage under the affected policies. Under the remaining agreements, the insurers have agreed to reimburse the PI Trust, subject to certain conditions, which will result in a partial reimbursement of the claims actually paid by the PI Trust. Prior to filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Grace entered into settlement agreements with various excess insurance carriers that are not dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan. The unpaid maximum aggregate amount available under these settlement agreements is approximately $487 million. Grace had no agreements in place with insurers with respect to approximately $483 million of excess coverage, which are at layers of coverage that have not yet been triggered. Settlement amounts are generally payable on a percentage of the claims actually paid, which is based on a number of factors including the years over which a claimant was exposed to an asbestos-containing product. Grace estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed $4.0 billion to access the total $970 million of coverage. In the event the Joint Plan becomes effective, some of this settled and unsettled coverage will be superseded by the settlement agreements that are dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan. Grace has excess coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers. Non-paying carriers are those that, although technically solvent, are not currently meeting their obligations to pay claims. Grace has filed and continues to file claims in the insolvency proceedings of these carriers, and Grace periodically receives distributions from some of these insolvent carriers. The amount of insurance recovered on claims by the PI Trust will depend on the aggregate amount of insurance settlements on the effective date of the Joint Plan and a number of factors that will be determined at the time claims are paid including: the nature of the claim, the relevant exposure years, the timing of payment, the solvency of insurers and the legal status of policy rights. Grace estimates that the recorded amount of $500.0 million is within the reasonable range of possible valuations of these policies at emergence. W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies; Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products. Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and packaging applications. Grace Construction Products will include specialty construction chemicals and specialty building materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential construction. In November 2012, it acquired the assets of Noblestar Catalysts Co., Ltd. In April 2013, it acquired Chemind Construction Products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Unit Had 2,500 PI Claims at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary ArvinMeritor, Inc., had 2,500 pending active claims alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. Rockwell International (Rockwell) -- ArvinMeritor, Inc. (AM), a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other companies, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. At March 31, 2013 and September 30, 2012, there were approximately 2,500 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as defendants. A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products. Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. For these reasons, the company does not consider the number of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in determining asbestos-related liabilities. The company defends these cases vigorously. As of March 31, 2013, Rockwell's asbestos-related reserves is $75 million and corresponding asbestos-related recoveries $67 million. The company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. Bates White provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of $37 million to $45 million. The company recognized a liability of $37 million at March 31, 2013 and September 30, 2012. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Rockwell. The following assumptions were made by the company after consultation with Bates White and are included in their study: * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period ending in fiscal year 2022. The ten year assumption is considered appropriate as Rockwell has reached certain longer-term agreements with key plaintiff law firms. In addition, filings of mesothelioma claims have been relatively stable over the last few years resulting in an improvement in the reliability of future projections over a longer time period; * The company believes that the litigation environment will change significantly beyond ten years, and that the reliability of estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with asbestos-related personal injury claims declines for each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain; * Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with the company's longer-term experience and will not have the significant volatility experienced in the recent years; * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the company's estimated liability in the future; and * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated. In addition to the probable liability for pending and future claims discussed, the company also recognized a liability of approximately $7 million in fiscal year 2012 associated with a previously disclosed asbestos-related claim (Gordon Bankhead) which was settled during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012. The payment required by this settlement agreement was made in the first quarter of fiscal year 2013. Rockwell maintained insurance coverage that management believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance retentions, for most of these claims. The company has initiated claims against certain of these carriers to enforce the insurance policies, which are currently being disputed. The company expects to recover some portion of defense and indemnity costs it has incurred to date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward. Based on consultation with advisors and underlying analysis performed by management, the company has recorded an insurance receivable related to Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of $7 million at March 31, 2013 and September 30, 2012. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial condition and results of operations. Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems. Meritor serves a range of customers globally, including medium- and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers, certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. Its new business segments are Commercial Truck & Industrial; and Aftermarket & Trailer. On January 2, 2012, it completed the sale of its Commercial Truck manufacturing facility located in St. Priest, France to Renault Trucks SAS, an affiliate of AB Volvo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful Death Suit v. Pepco Unit Goes to Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit asserting wrongful death claims filed against Pepco Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary was scheduled for trial, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE)(among other defendants) asserting claims under New Jersey's Wrongful Death and Survival statutes. The complaint, filed by the estate of a decedent who was the wife of a former employee of ACE, alleges that the decedent's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos brought home by her husband on his work clothes. New Jersey courts have recognized a cause of action against a premise owner in a so-called "take home" case if it can be shown that the harm was foreseeable. In this case, the complaint seeks recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for, among other things, the decedent's past medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering between the time of injury and death, and asserts a punitive damage claim. At this time, ACE has concluded that a loss is reasonably possible with respect to this matter, but ACE was unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss because (i) the damages sought are indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, and (iii) the matter involves facts that ACE believes are distinguishable from the facts of the "take-home" cause of action recognized by the New Jersey courts. A trial date has been set for May 20, 2013. Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI) is a holding company, that, through regulated public utility subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and the distribution and supply of natural gas (Power Delivery): Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light Company (DPL) and Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE). As of December 31, 2012, the Company segments include Power Delivery, consisting of the operations of Pepco, DPL and ACE, engaged in the transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and the distribution and supply of natural gas, Pepco Energy Services and Other Non-Regulated, consisting primarily of the operations of PCI. PHI Service Company, a subsidiary service company of PHI, provides a range of support services, including legal, accounting, treasury, tax, purchasing and information technology services, to PHI and its operating subsidiaries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Continues to Defend 266 Exposure Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ MRC Global Inc., continues to defend itself against 266 lawsuits seeking damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company states: "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third- party manufactured products purportedly distributed by MRC. As of March 31, 2013, we are named a defendant in approximately 266 lawsuits involving approximately 903 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third- party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable. While the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based upon our historical experience with these types of claims and analysis of pending claims, we do not believe that there is a reasonable possibility of potential losses arising from these claims that would have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements. MRC Global Inc., formerly known as McJunkin Red Man Holding Corporation is a holding company. The Company is the distributor of pipe, valves and fittings (PVF) and related products and services to the energy industry. The Company operates in two segments: North American segment and International segment. Its North American segment includes over 180 branch locations, six distribution centers in the United States, one distribution center in Canada, 11 valve automation service centers and over 170 pipe yards located in the oil and natural gas regions in North America. Its International segment includes over 40 branch locations throughout Europe, Asia and Australasia with distribution centers in each of the United Kingdom, Singapore and Australia and 10 automation service centers in Europe and Asia. In January 2013, the Company's subsidiary, McJunkin Red Man Corporation, acquired operating assets of Production Specialty Services, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Select Income Properties Contain Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------- Certain of Select Income REIT's real estate assets contain hazardous substances, including asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company states: "Since January 1, 2013, we have acquired five properties with a combined 779,010 square feet for an aggregate purchase price of $158,320, excluding closing costs. We allocated the purchase prices of these acquisitions based on the estimated fair values of the acquired assets and assumed liabilities. Certain of our real estate assets contain hazardous substances, including asbestos. We believe the asbestos at our properties is contained in accordance with current environmental regulations and we have no current plans to remove it. If these properties were demolished today, certain environmental regulations specify the manner in which the asbestos must be removed and we could incur substantial costs complying with such regulations. Certain of our industrial lands in Hawaii may require environmental remediation, especially if the use of those lands is changed; however, we do not have any present plans to change the use of those land parcels or to undertake this environmental cleanup. We do not have any insurance designated to limit any losses that we may incur as a result of known or unknown environmental conditions which are not caused by an insured event, such as, for example, fire or flood. However, as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, accrued environmental remediation costs totaling $8,415 and $8,644, respectively, were included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. These accrued expenses relate to maintenance of our properties for current uses. We do not believe that there are environmental conditions at any of our properties that will have a material adverse effect on us. However, no assurances can be given that such conditions are not present in our properties or that other costs we incur to remediate contamination will not have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition. Charges for environmental remediation costs are included in other operating expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income." Select Income REIT is a real estate company formed to primarily own and invest in net leased, single tenant properties. During the year ended December 31, 2011, approximately 68.1% of the Company's total revenues were from 228 properties it owns in Oahu, Hawaii. As of December 31, 2011, its 251 properties had a total of approximately 21.4 million rentable square feet and were approximately 95.3% leased (based upon rentable square feet). As of December 31, 2011, these properties were leased to 224 different tenants, with a weighted average remaining lease term (based on annualized rents). The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of CommonWealth REIT (CWH) that owns office and industrial properties. On February 16, 2012, CWH contributed 251 properties to the Company. During 2011, the Company acquired one property located in Chelmsford, Massachusetts with approximately 98,000 square feet. ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Records $453MM for PI Claims Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- BNSF Railway Company recorded $453 million as the best estimate of its future obligation for the settlement of asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for BNSF Railway employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985. BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends. Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary. Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed population (former and current employees hired prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF Railway projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95 percent of the future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years, respectively. BNSF Railway estimates its other personal injury liability claims and expense quarterly based on the covered population, activity levels and trends in frequency and the costs of covered injuries. Estimates include unasserted claims except for certain repetitive stress and other occupational trauma claims that allegedly result from prolonged repeated events or exposure. Such claims are estimated on an as-reported basis because the Company cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss due to other non- work related contributing causes of such injuries and the fact that continued exposure is required for the potential injury to manifest itself as a claim. BNSF Railway has not experienced any significant adverse trends related to these types of claims in recent years. BNSF Railway monitors quarterly actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received, the forecasted number of claims closing with payment and expected claim payments. Adjustments to the Company's estimates are recorded quarterly as necessary or more frequently as new events or revised estimates develop. For the three months ended March 31, 2013, the Company's accrued obligations for asbestos and other personal injury matters is $453 million. At March 31, 2013, $95 million was included in current liabilities. In addition, defense and processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, were not included in the recorded liability. The Company is primarily self-insured for personal injury claims. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs to settle personal injury claims may range from approximately $405 million to $520 million. However, BNSF Railway believes that the $453 million recorded at March 31, 2013, is the best estimate of the Company's future obligation for the settlement of personal injury claims. The amounts recorded by BNSF Railway for personal injury liabilities were based upon currently known facts. Future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of claims, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding personal injury litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs to be higher or lower than projected. Although the final outcome of personal injury matters cannot be predicted with certainty, considering among other things the meritorious legal defenses available and liabilities that have been recorded, it is the opinion of BNSF Railway that none of these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity. However, the occurrence of a number of these items in the same period could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year. BNSF Railway Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF), and is the principal operating subsidiary of BNSF. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Continues to Defend 15 PI Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parker Drilling Company continues to defend itself against 15 of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company states: "We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits in the ordinary course that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At March 31, 2013, there were approximately 15 of these lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the State of Mississippi. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously and, based on the information available to us at this time, we do not expect the outcome to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. No amounts were accrued at March 31, 2013." Parker Drilling Company (Parker) is a provider of contract drilling and drilling-related services. The Company operates in six segments: Rental Tools, U.S. Barge Drilling, U.S. Drilling, International Drilling, Technical Services and Construction Contract. During year ended December 31, 2012, the Company operates on 12 countries. The Company has operated in over 50 foreign countries and the United States. In April 2013, the Company announced the acquisition of International Tubular Services Limited and certain affiliates (ITS), subsidiaries of ITS Tubular Services (Holdings) Limited. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 4,296 PI Claims as of April 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. had 4,296 claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos as of April 19, 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company states: "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics generally had a useful life of three to twelve months. We were defending 4,296 claims as of April 19, 2013. We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. Exposure and disease information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, and often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims. While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of April 19, 2013, we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 36,567 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $8.6 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The Company has over $125 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that we should be able to access. In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. Although we do not believe, based on currently available information and for the reasons stated, that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on our understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement amounts have been allocated to various policies, our settlement experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate any material liability relating to the resolution of the aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance limits. Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by juries." Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material processing company. The Company's business is a producer of custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to heavyweight containerboard. The Company has five segments: Paper Machine Clothing segment (PMC), Engineered Composites (AEC), Albany Door Systems (ADS), Engineered Fabrics (EF) and PrimaLoft Products. Albany International supplies the worldwide pulp and paper industry, as well as other process industries, with technologically advanced structured materials and related services. The Company maintains manufacturing facilities in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States. On January 11, 2012, the Company sold its assets in the Albany Door Systems (ADS) segment to ASSA ABLOY AB. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit Had 7,866 Claims at April 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., had 7,866 claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos as of April 19, 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,866 claims as of April 19, 2013. We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the claims that have been asserted against it. As of January 30, 2013, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,733 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings. We do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims. Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material processing company. The Company's business is a producer of custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to heavyweight containerboard. The Company has five segments: Paper Machine Clothing segment (PMC), Engineered Composites (AEC), Albany Door Systems (ADS), Engineered Fabrics (EF) and PrimaLoft Products. Albany International supplies the worldwide pulp and paper industry, as well as other process industries, with technologically advanced structured materials and related services. The Company maintains manufacturing facilities in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States. On January 11, 2012, the Company sold its assets in the Albany Door Systems (ADS) segment to ASSA ABLOY AB. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Continues to Defend PI Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Cytec Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging asbestos-related product liability and personal injury, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company states: "We are the subject of numerous lawsuits and claims incidental to the conduct of our or certain of our predecessors' businesses, including lawsuits and claims relating to product liability and personal injury, including asbestos, environmental, contractual, employment and intellectual property matters. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the aggregate self- insured and insured contingent liability was $49.5 [million] and $49.8 [million], respectively, and the related insurance recovery receivable for the liability as well as claims for past payments was $20.5 [million] at March 31, 2013 and $20.7 [million] at December 31, 2012. The asbestos liability included in the amounts at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 was $39.2 [million] and $39.3 [million], respectively, and the insurance receivable related to the liability as well as claims for past payments was $20.2 [million] and $20.4 [million], respectively. We anticipate receiving a net tax benefit for payment of those claims for which full insurance recovery is not realized. We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that we own or formerly owned, or from products that we formerly manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we can make no assurances that this pattern will continue. For the three months ended March 31, 2013, there were 8,100 claimants involved in asbestos claims with us. Numbers in the foregoing table are rounded to the nearest hundred and are based on information as received by us which may lag actual court filing dates by several months or more. Claims are recorded as closed when a claimant is dismissed or severed from a case. Claims are opened whenever a new claim is brought, including from a claimant previously dismissed or severed from another case. Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third party, which is updated every three years. During the third quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables, which updated our last study prepared in the third quarter of 2009. The study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim type. In 2012, as a result of our findings, we recorded a decrease of $2.1 to our self-insured and insured contingent liabilities for indemnity costs for pending and anticipated probable future claims and recorded a decrease of $1.0 related to receivables for probable insurance recoveries for these pending and future claims. The reserve decrease was attributable to lower projected claim filings offset by more severe malignancy rates and settlement value projections. The decrease in the receivable was a result of the lower gross liability and a shift in the types of future claims expected. Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48.0% of our future indemnity costs. We have completed coverage in place agreements with most of our larger insurance carriers. The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous variables that can affect the amount of the liability and insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii) changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co- defendants and insurers." Cytec Industries Inc. (Cytec) is a specialty chemicals and materials company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling value-added products. Its products serve a diverse range of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials, mining and plastics. Cytec has four business segments: Engineered Materials, Umeco, In-Process Separation and Additive Technologies. Engineered Materials segment principally includes advanced composites, carbon fiber, and structural film adhesives. The Umeco segment includes composite and process materials, primarily for the aerospace and defense, wind energy, automotive, recreation and other industrial segments. The In Process Separation segment includes mining chemicals and phosphines. The Additive Technologies segment includes polymer additives, specialty additives and formulated resins. On July 20, 2012, the Company acquired Umeco plc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Has 424 Pending PI Suits at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Holding Corporation had 424 pending lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result to exposure from asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. As previously reported, since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos cases pending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various defendants. A total of 424 asbestos cases is pending at March 31, 2013. In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all of the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be determined through written interrogatories or other discovery after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK Steel's experience to date that only a small percentage of asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small fraction of the damages initially claimed. For the three months ended March 31, 2013, the total amount paid in settlements is $0.7 million. Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present knowledge, and the factors set forth, the Company believes it is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against AK Steel will have a materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However, predictions as to the outcome of pending litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease alleged to be suffered by each claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos litigation. AK Steel Holding Corporation (AK Holding) is an integrated producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel and, together with AK Holding, the Company). The Company's operations consist primarily of nine steelmaking and finishing plants and tubular production facilities located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Company's operations produce flat-rolled value-added carbon steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled carbon steel products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in sheet and strip form, as well as carbon and stainless steel that is finished into welded steel tubing. In addition, the Company's operations include European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other materials, AK Coal Resources, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Continues to Defend US PI Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler AG continues to defend itself against asbestos- related lawsuits filed against its U.S. subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company states: "Some of our U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal claims pending in the U.S. and the U.K. Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with work allegedly performed by our subsidiaries during the 1970s and earlier. UNITED STATES A summary of the Company's U.S. claim activity is as follows: Three Months Ended Number of Claims by period: March 31, 2013 --------------------------- ------------------ Open claims at beginning of period 125,310,000 New claims 1,210,000 Claims resolved (1,040,000) ------------------ Open claims at end of period 125,480,000 The Company said, "We had the following U.S. asbestos-related assets and liabilities recorded on our consolidated balance sheet as of the dates set forth. Total U.S. asbestos-related liabilities are estimated through the first quarter of 2028. Although it is likely that claims will continue to be filed after that date, the uncertainties inherent in any long-term forecast prevent us from making reliable estimates of the indemnity and defense costs that might be incurred after that date." United States Asbestos March 31, 2013 ---------------------- -------------- Asbestos-related assets recorded within: Accounts and notes receivable-other $24,738,000 Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable 102,893,000 -------------- Total asbestos-related assets $127,631,000 Asbestos-related liabilities recorded within: Accrued expenses $41,875,000 Asbestos-related liability 220,909,000 -------------- Total asbestos-related liabilities $262,784,000 Liability balance by claim category: Open claims $41,322,000 Future unasserted claims 221,462,000 -------------- Total asbestos-related liabilities $262,784,000 The Company said, "We have worked with Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation, or ARPC, nationally recognized consultants in the U.S. with respect to projecting asbestos liabilities, to estimate the amount of asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs at each year-end based on a forecast for the next 15 years. Each year we have recorded our estimated asbestos liability at a level consistent with ARPC's reasonable best estimate. Our estimated asbestos liability decreased during the first three months of 2013 as a result of indemnity and defense cost payments totaling approximately $14,600, partially offset by an increase of $2,000 related to the accrual of our rolling 15-year asbestos- related liability estimate. The total asbestos-related liabilities are comprised of our estimates for our liability relating to open (outstanding) claims being valued and our liability for future unasserted claims through the first quarter of 2028." "Our liability estimate is based upon the following information and/or assumptions: number of open claims, forecasted number of future claims, estimated average cost per claim by disease type -- mesothelioma, lung cancer and non-malignancies -- and the breakdown of known and future claims into disease type -- mesothelioma, lung cancer and non-malignancies, as well as other factors. The total estimated liability, which has not been discounted for the time value of money, includes both the estimate of forecasted indemnity amounts and forecasted defense costs. Total defense costs and indemnity liability payments are estimated to be incurred through the first quarter of 2028, during which period the incidence of new claims is forecasted to decrease each year. We believe that it is likely that there will be new claims filed after the first quarter of 2028, but in light of uncertainties inherent in long-term forecasts, we do not believe that we can reasonably estimate the indemnity and defense costs that might be incurred after the first quarter of 2028. Through March 31, 2013, total cumulative indemnity costs paid, prior to insurance recoveries, were approximately $805,000 and total cumulative defense costs paid were approximately $393,900, or approximately 33% of total defense and indemnity costs. The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost per resolved claim through March 31, 2013 has been approximately $3.2. The average cost per resolved claim is increasing and we believe it will continue to increase in the future. The Company said, "Over the last several years, certain of our subsidiaries have entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to make lump-sum payments, as well as payments over time, for use by our subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs and, in certain cases, for reimbursement for portions of out-of-pocket costs previously incurred. As our subsidiaries reach agreements with their insurers to settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance coverage, we increase our asbestos-related insurance asset and record settlement gains. Asbestos-related assets under executed settlement agreements with insurers due in the next 12 months are recorded within accounts and notes receivable-other and amounts due beyond 12 months are recorded within asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable. Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable also includes our best estimate of actual and probable insurance recoveries relating to our liability for pending and estimated future asbestos claims through the first quarter of 2028. Our asbestos-related assets have not been discounted for the time value of money. "Our insurance recoveries may be limited by future insolvencies among our insurers. Other than receivables related to bankruptcy court-approved settlements during liquidation proceedings, we have not assumed recovery in the estimate of our asbestos-related insurance asset from any of our currently insolvent insurers. We have considered the financial viability and legal obligations of our subsidiaries' insurance carriers and believe that the insurers or their guarantors will continue to reimburse a significant portion of claims and defense costs relating to asbestos litigation. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we have not recorded an allowance for uncollectible balances against our asbestos-related insurance assets. We write off receivables from insurers that have become insolvent; there were no such write-offs during the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012. Insurers may become insolvent in the future and our insurers may fail to reimburse amounts owed to us on a timely basis. If we fail to realize the expected insurance recoveries, or experience delays in receiving material amounts from our insurers, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected. "Our net asbestos-related provision during the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 was $2,000 and $1,997, respectively, and the provision in each period was the result of the accrual of our rolling 15-year asbestos liability estimate. "For the three months ended March 31, 2013, our approximate asbestos-related payments is $5,700,000. "We expect to have net cash outflows of $14,700 during the full year 2013 as a result of asbestos liability indemnity and defense payments in excess of insurance proceeds. This estimate assumes no settlements with insurance companies and no elections by us to fund additional payments. As we continue to collect cash from insurance settlements and assuming no increase in our asbestos- related insurance liability, the asbestos-related insurance receivable recorded on our consolidated balance sheet will continue to decrease. "The estimate of the liabilities and assets related to asbestos claims and recoveries is subject to a number of uncertainties that may result in significant changes in the current estimates. Among these are uncertainties as to the ultimate number and type of claims filed, the amounts of claim costs, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies with asbestos claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, as well as potential legislative changes. Increases in the number of claims filed or costs to resolve those claims could cause us to increase further the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. "Based on our December 31, 2012 liability estimate, an increase of 25% in the average per claim indemnity settlement amount would increase the liability by $42,000 and the impact on expense would be dependent upon available additional insurance recoveries. Assuming no change to the assumptions currently used to estimate our insurance asset, this increase would result in a charge on our consolidated statement of operations of approximately 85% of the increase in the liability. Long-term cash flows would ultimately change by the same amount. Should there be an increase in the estimated liability in excess of 25%, the percentage of that increase that would be expected to be funded by additional insurance recoveries will decline." Foster Wheeler AG (Foster Wheeler), operates through two business groups: the Global Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and its Global Power Group. In addition to these two business groups, the Company also report corporate center expenses, its captive insurance operation and expenses related to certain liabilities, such as asbestos, in the Corporate and Finance Group (C&F Group). Foster Wheeler serves industries, including oil and gas, oil refining, chemical/petrochemical, pharmaceutical; environmental, metals and mining, power generation and power plant operation and maintenance. During the year ended December 31, 2011, it acquired a company based in Germany. In January 2012, the Company acquired Graf-Wulff GmbH. In November 2012, the Company acquired Three Streams Engineering, Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Continues to Defend UK PI Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler AG continues to defend itself against asbestos- related lawsuits against its U.K. subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. The Company states: "Some of our subsidiaries in the U.K. have also received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos. To date, 1,026 claims have been brought against our U.K. subsidiaries, of which 299 remained open as of March 31, 2013. None of the settled claims have resulted in material costs to us. "The following table summarizes our asbestos-related liabilities and assets for our U.K. subsidiaries based on open (outstanding) claims and our estimate for future unasserted claims through the first quarter of 2028: United Kingdom Asbestos March 31, 2013 ----------------------- -------------- Asbestos-related assets: Accounts and notes receivable-other $961,000 Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable 27,541,000 -------------- Total asbestos-related assets $28,502,000 Asbestos-related liabilities: Accrued expenses $961,000 Asbestos-related liability 29,669,000 -------------- Total asbestos-related liabilities $30,630,000 Liability balance by claim category: Open claims $7,004,000 Future unasserted claims 23,626,000 -------------- Total asbestos-related liabilities $30,630,000 "The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable injury and accordingly, we have reduced our liability assessment. If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total asbestos liability recorded in the U.K. would increase to approximately $43,300, with a corresponding increase in the asbestos-related asset. "In the ordinary course of business, we are parties to litigation involving clients and subcontractors arising out of project contracts. Such litigation includes claims and counterclaims by and against us for canceled contracts, for additional costs incurred in excess of current contract provisions, as well as for back charges for alleged breaches of warranty and other contract commitments. If we were found to be liable for any of the claims/counterclaims against us, we would incur a charge against earnings to the extent a reserve had not been established for the matter in our accounts or if the liability exceeds established reserves. "Due to the inherent commercial, legal and technical uncertainties underlying the estimation of our project claims, the amounts ultimately realized or paid by us could differ materially from the balances, if any, included in our financial statements, which could result in additional material charges against earnings, and which could also materially adversely impact our financial condition and cash flows." Foster Wheeler AG (Foster Wheeler), operates through two business groups: the Global Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and its Global Power Group. In addition to these two business groups, the Company also report corporate center expenses, its captive insurance operation and expenses related to certain liabilities, such as asbestos, in the Corporate and Finance Group (C&F Group). Foster Wheeler serves industries, including oil and gas, oil refining, chemical/petrochemical, pharmaceutical; environmental, metals and mining, power generation and power plant operation and maintenance. During the year ended December 31, 2011, it acquired a company based in Germany. In January 2012, the Company acquired Graf-Wulff GmbH. In November 2012, the Company acquired Three Streams Engineering, Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Unit Records $75-Mil. Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------ Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, recorded $75 million asbestos-related reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013. Maremont Corporation("Maremont"), a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. Maremont had approximately 5,000 pending asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2013 and September 30, 2012. Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product. For these reasons, Maremont does not consider the number of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in determining its asbestos-related liability. As of March 31, 2013, Maremont's asbestos-related reserve is $75 million and corresponding asbestos-related recoveries is $67 million. Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for Claims Resolution ("CCR") and shared with other CCR members in the payment of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related claims. The CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos claims on behalf of its members until February 2001, when it was reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared settlements. Since the CCR was reorganized in 2001, Maremont has handled asbestos- related claims through its own defense counsel and has taken a more aggressive defensive approach that involves examining the merits of each asbestos-related claim. Although the company expects legal defense costs to continue at higher levels than when it participated in the CCR, the company believes its litigation strategy has reduced the average indemnity cost per claim. Maremont engages Bates White LLC (Bates White), a consulting firm with extensive experience estimating costs associated with asbestos litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against Maremont. Bates White prepares these cost estimates annually in September. Although it is not possible to estimate the full range of costs because of various uncertainties, Bates White advised Maremont that it would be possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the cost of the probable settlement and defense costs of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims, based on historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. Bates White provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years of $72 million to $88 million. Maremont recognized a liability of $75 million at March 31, 2013 and September 30, 2012. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Maremont. The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation with Bates White and are included in their study: * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period ending in fiscal year 2022. The ten-year assumption is considered appropriate as Maremont has reached certain longer-term agreements with key plaintiff law firms and filings of mesothelioma claims have been relatively stable over the last few years resulting in an improvement in the reliability of future projections over a longer time period; * Maremont believes that the litigation environment will change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with asbestos-related personal injury claims will decline for each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain; * Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims filed outside of Madison County, Illinois will be at the level consistent with Maremont's prior experience; * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the company's estimated liability in the future; and * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims with plaintiffs' law firms in jurisdictions without an established history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated. Recoveries: Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims. The coverage also reimburses Maremont for any indemnity paid on those claims. The coverage is provided by several insurance carriers based on insurance agreements in place. Incorporating historical information with respect to buy-outs and settlements of coverage, and excluding any policies in dispute, the insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is $67 million as of March 31, 2013 and September 30, 2012. The difference between the estimated liability and insurance receivable is primarily related to proceeds received from settled insurance policies. Certain insurance policies have been settled in cash prior to the ultimate settlement of the related asbestos liabilities. Amounts received from insurance settlements generally reduce recorded insurance receivables. Receivables for policies in dispute are not recorded. The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could change significantly from its past experience, due, for example, to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims; or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial condition and results of operations. Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems. Meritor serves a range of customers globally, including medium- and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers, certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. Its new business segments are Commercial Truck & Industrial; and Aftermarket & Trailer. On January 2, 2012, it completed the sale of its Commercial Truck manufacturing facility located in St. Priest, France to Renault Trucks SAS, an affiliate of AB Volvo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Trane's Bid for Summary Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff William E. Krauss was diagnosed with lung cancer in June 2011. On January 17, 2012, Mr. Krauss and his wife Jeanne Krauss commenced an action to recover for injuries allegedly caused by his exposure to asbestos containing products. Over the course of nine days between February and April of 2012, Krauss provided deposition testimony concerning his alleged asbestos exposure. His de beneesse deposition was held on April 10, 2012. Krauss testified that he worked as a union sheet metal worker from 1951 to the early 1970's and from 1978 to 1986. Among other things he installed new air conditioning units and cooling towers at hundreds of job sites throughout New York City. He testified that he disassembled new air conditioners in order to fit them into building elevators and hallways, and reassembled them once inside. Similarly, he disassembled cooling towers so they could be hoisted to the tops of low-rise buildings piece by piece and reassembled on the roof. During the dismantling process Krauss chiselled and scraped asbestos gaskets which released asbestos-containing dust into the air around him. He then reassembled these units by cutting gaskets from a roll of sheet material. This also caused asbestos dust to be released into his immediate vicinity. Krauss testified that defendant Trane US, Inc., was one of several manufacturers of air conditioning units and cooling towers with which he worked throughout his career. Trane now moves for summary judgment claiming that Krauss's identification of Trane as a manufacturer of air conditioners with which he worked is unreliable. In this regard, Trane relies on testimony from Krauss's de beneesse deposition that he could only specifically recall encountering one or two Trane air conditioners during his career, and he could not specifically recall being exposed to asbestos from these units. The Defendant further submits that because Trane did not manufacture cooling towers until 2006 Krauss misidentified Trane cooling towers as a source of his asbestos exposure. In a May 1, 2013 decision and order, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Trane's motion for summary judgment. Read in its entirety, Krauss's deposition testimony sufficiently identifies the defendant as a source of his asbestos exposure, Judge Heitler said. The fact that there are discrepancies in the record does not entitle the defendant to summary judgment; rather, those issues go to the weight of the testimony, a determination which must be made by the trier of fact, Judge Heitler added, citing Alvarez v NY City Hous. Auth., 295 Ad2d 225, 226 (1st Dept 2002). The case is WILLIAM E. KRAUSS and JEANNE KRAUSS, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190020/12, Motion Seq. No. 009 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/qarH7ifrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 PI Suits Consolidated for Trial Purposes ------------------------------------------------------------ In a May 1, 2013 decision and order, Judge Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court, New York County, consolidated 15 asbestos-related personal injury actions into four trial groups and ordered that all the parties appear for a settlement conference and discuss any remaining discovery issues. Judge Jaffe consolidated the actions after determining that the factors set forth in Malcolm v Ntl. Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346 (2d Cir 1993) have been satisfied. The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION, relating to LINDA J. AMBRUSO as Executrix for Estate of LEONARD A. AMBRUSO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Docket No. 116087/05, Motion Seq. No. 14 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Jaffe's Decision is available at http://is.gd/fIJDKNfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Bid to Junk "Lieberman" Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Leonid Liberman, now deceased, was diagnosed with mesothelioma on or about December 28, 2011. On February 2, 2011 Mr. Liberman and his wife Dina Liberman commenced an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly caused by Mr. Liberman's exposure to asbestos-containing products. Mr. Liberman was deposed on February 14, 15 and 16, 2012. Defendant Union Carbide Corporation ("UCC") manufactured and sold asbestos-containing phenolic molding compound under the trade name "Bakelite" until 1975. Bakelite, which has the appearance of hard plastic, was commonly used in electrical panels, insulators and switches due to its electrically nonconductive and heat-resistant properties. While most Bakelite did not contain asbestos, some varieties did, including one form designated BMRS-5314. UCC moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it on the ground that it was not the exclusive supplier of phenolic molding compound to Square D, which had dozens of North American facilities in addition to the Lexington, Kentucky plant. UCC also argues there is no evidence to show that Square D's Lexington, Kentucky plant manufactured circuit breakers and panel boxes, which are the types of materials Mr. Liberman testified to working on, and assuming it did, that such products were supplied to the New York market. In a May 1, 2013 decision and order, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted UCC's motion for summary judgment and the action and any cross-claims against the Defendant are severed and dismissed in their entirety. Judge Heitler found that the memorandum in question refers only to Square D's Lexington, Kentucky facility, whereas Square D had at least four dozen plants throughout North America besides the Kentucky plant, and the Plaintiffs have not shown that the asbestos-containing products manufactured in Kentucky supplied the New York region. In fact, Square D's March 9, 2006 interrogatory responses filed in Madison County, Illinois provide that the company purchased its phenolic molding compounds from at least seven different suppliers, Judge Heitler said. The case is LEONID LIBERMAN and DINA LIBERMAN, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190057/12, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/YyCdltfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products' Liability Pegged at $1.2BB --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Judith Fitzgerald of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered a memorandum opinion dated May 20, 2013, accepting $1.2 billion as the estimated amount of Specialty Products Holding Corp. and its debtor affiliates' liability for present and future mesothelioma claims. Pursuant to Section 502(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, an estimation of the amount of contingent or unliquidated claims against Debtors, including the present and future mesothelioma claims caused by exposure to the Debtors' asbestos, was conducted. Based on the Debtors' postulate of how their actual historical payments to claimants should be reduced for purposes of assessing present and future claims, the Debtors' expert, Dr. Charles H. Mullin, estimated the Debtors' total future liabilities at between $465-$700 million nominal, or $300-$575 million net present value with a discount rate of 5.5 percent. Using traditional analysis, Dr. Mark Peterson, a lawyer and behavioral scientist who testified for the Asbestos Creditors' Committee, estimated that the most appropriate estimate of Debtors' total liability, applying a 3.7 percent discount rate, is $1.255 billion net present value. Dr. Thomas Vasquez, an economist and vice president of Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation, testified for the Future Claimants' Representative, Eric Green. Dr. Vasquez estimated Debtors' total liability at $1.1 billion, net present value. He applied a 3.45 percent discount rate. Judge Fitzgerald noted that one difference in the approaches of the three experts was their use of a forecasting model. Dr. Mullin and Dr. Peterson used the Nicholson approach. Dr. Vasquez averaged the Nicholson and Peto approaches to reach his conclusion. He did so because Dr. Nicholson's forecast is limited to those who are occupationally exposed while the Peto approach considers non-occupational exposure. The Peto approach considers "whoever gets asbestos from whatever source." Judge Fitzgerald declined to accept the Debtors' novel approach in the case and credit the testimony of the ACC's and FCR's experts, adopting for the most part that of Dr. Vasquez. Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reported that Judge Fitzgerald's 51-page opinion contained what one legal expert called "sweeping" language that could have implications for future asbestos litigation. Todd Brown, a professor at State University of New York Buffalo, said there are plenty of circumstances in which a company will settle claims that have little merit, particularly when they are represented in bulk by the same plaintiffs' attorney, the report added. "The language Judge Fitzgerald used is so sweeping that it will lend itself to use in other cases where it is pretty clear settlements are driven by factors other than the merits," Brown told the news agency. "This could be read to suggest that just because a claim is settled it had some intrinsic value other than as a nuisance claim, even where the settlement values are so low that few rational plaintiffs asserting meritorious claims would accept them." Dr. Mullin, on behalf of Specialty Products, argued that the history of asbestos claims brought against the company overstated the number of injuries caused by its products, because it was settling nuisance cases to cut the cost of litigation. If those nuisance settlement costs were stripped out of the estimation process, Specialty Products argued it would need to set aside far less money to cover future claims. Judge Fitzgerald flatly rejected that argument, holding that "it cannot be rationally doubted that a settlement places a value on the claim that both parties accept." She went on to say that "as our task is to estimate what amount will compensate present and future victims exposed to Debtors' products, the value both sides (debtors and tort victims) historically chose is clearly relevant." The Debtors said in a statement they intend to appeal, according to Reuters. "The debtors, Bondex and SPHC, firmly believe that the opinion substantially overstates the amount of their liability and is not supported by the facts or the law," they said. The case is IN RE: Specialty Products Holding Corp. a/k/a RPM, Inc., Chapter 11, Debtor, Bondex International, Inc., Debtor, Bankruptcy Nos. 10-11780-JKF, 10-11779-JKF, Jointly Administered at Bankr. No. 10-11780 (Bankr. D. Del.). A full-text copy of Judge Fitzgerald's Decision is available at http://is.gd/siK2Q2 from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Use Plaintiffs' Wrongful Death Claims Barred ------------------------------------------------------------- The Wallace & Gale Settlement Trust appeals verdicts rendered against it by a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, as to claims of survival and wrongful death in four cases consolidated for trial, in favor of: (1) in the Carter case, plaintiffs, Sonia Carter and the Estate of Rufus Carter, and use plaintiffs, Rufus Carter, Jr., Kenneth Carter, and Natasha Sloan; (2) in the James case, plaintiff, the Estate of Levester James, and use plaintiffs, Katherine James, Monica James, and Kevin James; (3) in the Lawrence case, plaintiffs, Bernice Lawrence and the Estate of Mayso Lawrence, Sr., and use plaintiffs, Elaine McPherson, Mayso Lawrence, Jr., Phaedra Bailey, Tyrone Lawrence, Cephus Lawrence, Sean Lawrence, and Tanesha Lawrence; and (4) in the Hewitt case, plaintiffs, Annette Hewitt, Roger Hewitt, Jr., and the Estate of Roger Hewitt, and use plaintiffs, Idalyn Williams and Penny Hewitt. Following trial, the Appellant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for remittitur or new trial, which the circuit court denied. The Appellant noted an appeal raising three issues: I. Did the circuit court err in allowing substantial damage awards to fifteen "use plaintiffs" who never joined any case prior to verdict? II. Did the circuit court err in the Hewitt case by rejecting allocation of damages according to the respective harm caused by smoking and exposure to asbestos? III. Did the circuit court err in instructing the jury that suppliers and installers have a duty to inspect, analyze, and test any product that they supply or install? In an opinion dated May 2, 2013, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland answered questions I and II in the affirmative and question III in the negative. Accordingly, the Court of Special Appeals reversed and vacated the judgments entered against the Appellant in favor of the use plaintiffs, concluding that the statute of limitations now bars the use plaintiffs from bringing wrongful death claims. As to the Hewitt case, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgments entered against the Appellant in favor of the Plaintiffs, and remanded for a new trial. The Court affirmed the judgments entered against the Appellant in favor of the Plaintiffs in the Carter case, the James case, and the Lawrence case. The case is THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, v. SONIA CARTER, ET AL., No. 2018. September Term, 2011 (Md. Spec. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/LdDvgGfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Granting Demurrer to "Curran" Suit Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Curran performed maintenance and repair work at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's Haynes Powerhouse in Seal Beach, California from 1965 through the 1970's. He insulated cokers, heat exchangers, piping, pumps, boilers and valve fittings. Mr. Curran applied asbestos-containing block and pipe covering; insulation; and fibrous adhesive. Mr. Curran also performed various jobs as an electrician at the Los Angeles Water Treatment Plant and the Los Angeles County Sewer Treatment plant. This work included the installation of electrical wiring, which involved running, splicing and installing high voltage, asbestos-insulated wiring and cable. As an employee of Owens Corning Fiberglas in the 1970's, Mr. Curran worked at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's Scattergood Powerhouse in El Segundo, California. There, he performed insulation repair and replacement work throughout the powerhouse, which included cutting and installing asbestos-containing pipe and block insulation. He also cut and installed asbestos cloth and mixed and applied asbestos-containing insulation cement. Barbara Ann Curran filed a complaint against the City of Los Angeles, alleging that the city knew or should have known of the dangerous working conditions at the aforementioned premises, and negligently failed to abate or correct the hazardous conditions or warn Mr. Curran of the existence of the dangerous conditions. Mr. Curran was diagnosed with asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease on December 11, 2009. Mr. Curran died on July 19, 2012. Ms. Curran appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the city acting by and through the Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, the city's demurrer to appellant's complaint. The Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting the demurrer on the ground that appellant did not timely file a claim under the Government Claims Act. In a decision dated May 2, 2013, the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two, found that the complaint sufficiently alleges facts suggesting that the city waived the defense of untimeliness under the Government Claims Act. Accordingly, the Court reversed. The Court, citing Green v. State Center Community College Dist. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1354, fn. omitted, pointed out that under the Government Claims Act, the filing of an untimely claim "triggers a duty by the public entity to notify the potential claimant of the claim's insufficiency stating, with particularity, the defects or omissions. If the public entity fails to send this notice, it waives any defenses as to the sufficiency of the claim based upon a defect or omission." Because the complaint alleges that the city did not respond to the Appellant's claim, the complaint makes a prima facie showing that the defense of untimeliness was waived, the Court said. The city's demurrer was not properly sustained on the ground that the Appellant's claim was not timely filed, the Court added. The case is IN RE LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES, No. B241095 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/9lwtzVfrom Leagle.com. Alan R. Brayton, Esq., Gilbert L. Purcell, Esq., and Lloyd F. LeRoy, Esq., at Brayton Purcell, LLP, in Novato, California, for the Plaintiff and Appellant. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Richard M. Brown, General Counsel for Water and Power, and Lisa S. Berger, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Keeps Ruling in "Seymour" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Seymour commenced an action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of his exposure to coal tar pitch fumes and asbestos while employed as a laborer in the carbon electrode industry. In the complaint, the Plaintiff separated the defendants into two groups: the coal tar pitch industry defendants, which included defendants Beazer East, Inc., Domtar Corporation, and Honeywell International, Inc., (the "Appellants") and the asbestos industry defendants. The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that products manufactured and sold by the Coal Tar Pitch Industry Defendants exposed him to coal tar pitch fumes, which caused him to contract bladder cancer. The Plaintiff further alleged that products manufactured and sold by the asbestos industry defendants exposed him to asbestos, which caused injuries related thereto. The Appellants appeal from an order denying their motion for severance of all claims and causes of action against them. In a May 3, 2013, decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department, affirmed holding that the determination of whether to grant or deny a request for a severance is a matter of judicial discretion, which should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right of the party seeking the severance. The burden, according to the Court, is on the party seeking the severance to show that a joint trial would result in substantial prejudice. Severance, the Court added, is appropriate where individual issues predominate, concerning particular circumstances applicable to each defendant and there is the possibility of confusion for the jury. In this case, although the Appellants contended that a joint trial might result in juror confusion and would be inappropriate because the Plaintiff's alleged injuries with respect to his exposure to coal tar pitch fumes and to asbestos were distinct, they did not satisfy their burden of establishing that a joint trial would result in substantial prejudice, the Court ruled. Thus, the Court perceived no reason to disturb Supreme Court's exercise of discretion in denying the motion. The Appellants' contention that severance was warranted because they would be prejudiced by the procedures relating to asbestos cases was raised for the first time in their reply papers and was therefore not properly before the court, the Court said. Finally, the Appellants' contention that, without severance, they will be denied the opportunity to seek removal of their action to federal court is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before the Court. The case is IN RE: EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ANTHONY SEYMOUR, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NIAGARA INSULATIONS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, BEAZER EAST, INC., DOMTAR CORPORATION AND HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants-Appellants, 238 CA 12-01809 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/6A0ij4from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Search for Meso Clients Intensifies on TV, Web --------------------------------------------------------------- Dionne Searcey, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that years ago lawyers combed newspaper obituaries for victims of asbestos-related cancer. Now, law firms spend millions of dollars annually to advertise on television and the Internet in search of mesothelioma patients. According to the WSJ report, often, the firms with the highest profile on TV don't even try cases. Instead, they specialize in "lead generation," reeling in mesothelioma patients and passing them on, for a price, to attorneys who will sign the clients or litigate the case. WSJ related that Texas attorney Mark Lanier, whose firm has represented asbestos plaintiffs for years, divides the new strata of mesothelioma attorneys into what he calls "chicken catchers and chicken pluckers," or those who drum up clients and those who litigate their cases. He adds: "The best of the catchers do actually keep up with the case afterward." Trolling online for new clients can be costly, WSJ said. On Google's AdWords, which charges advertisers for their ads to appear next to specific keywords entered by users, lawsuit-related phrases including "mesothelioma" are the most expensive category of keyword, sometimes going for as much as $900 a click for the top ad spot, Larry Kim, founder of WordStream Inc., a provider of Internet marketing software and services, told WSJ. "This is the most expensive niche there is, period." WSJ said Internet domain names with variations of "mesothelioma" and "asbestos" are touted by entrepreneurs who snapped them up first. Patrick V. Palmer, who specializes reselling domain names he has purchased, initially tried to peddle his 1,000 mesothelioma-related domains such as "detroitmesothelioma.com" to asbestos plaintiffs' attorneys but decided they would be so lucrative he is going to keep them. He plans to set up websites to lure potential plaintiffs and sell any "leads" to plaintiffs' lawyers. "A light bulb went off in my head -- why am I selling these things?" Mr. Palmer told WSJ. "One lead will justify the cost of selling a domain." One Pennsylvania company called ServicesToLawyers last spring offered up "very elusive" leads on potential mesothelioma clients for $5,000 each, the WSJ report said. "If this is the league that you play in please give me a call to personally discuss the process," said an email to plaintiffs' attorneys sent by Jesse Levine, the company's founder, WSJ related. Mr. Levine declined to comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christchurch Patients Had Fibro Risk, Say Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------ PSYCHE -- MAY 6 Georgina Stylianou and Olivia Carville, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that industrial abseilers, from left, Neil Silcock, Liam Milner, Petra Doner and Jeff Richards who are not impressed with the response to them discovering they were dealing with asbestos while working on the Parkside Block at Christchurch Hospital. According to the report, contractors exposed to asbestos while working at Christchurch Hospital are outraged they may have unknowingly put patients and staff at risk to the poisonous substance while walking through active wards. Official test results, obtained by The Press, confirm subcontractors for exterior building firm Goleman were exposed to asbestos while working on the roof of the hospital's earthquake- damaged Parkside building in early April, the report related. Several workers say they walked through wards and saw patients in hospital beds, unknowingly wearing potentially contaminated material, for more than a week after Goleman had received test results that confirmed the presence of white asbestos on the roof site, the report further related. The Government is investigating the issue after it received a complaint about the possible health risk but the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) said there was no concern for patient or staff safety, the report added. The workers, who were removing moss and lichen from the hospital roof, were concerned the material they were working with contained asbestos and gave the CDHB maintenance officer a sample to test on March 27, the report said. According to the report, external chemical risk management company, Chemsafety, tested the sample and preliminary results confirming the presence of white asbestos were sent to the CDHB on April 2. Goleman was informed of the test results and advised to stop work immediately by the CDHB, the report related. An agenda for a Goleman staff meeting, which 25 of the 27 possible employees attended, mentioned the possibility of asbestos on the site with the phrase "stop, think and if not safe, don't do," the report also related. However, four contractors maintain they were not told about the risk, the news agency said. The work continued for the next 10 days. Workers told The Press up to 10 Goleman employees may have been exposed to asbestos and said they were not advised of the potential health and safety hazard or told of the positive test results by Goleman, the report said. A group of 10 workers approached Fletchers, the project manager for the hospital, amid growing concerns their workplace could be contaminated, on April 10. Fletchers immediately shut the site down. Results from a second test sample were received by the CDHB on April 12, which once again came back as positive, and Goleman was again immediately informed. On that same day, Goleman workers were ordered to pick up gear, including ropes, clothing and hoses, from the contaminated work site and carry it in sealed plastic bags through Parkside and into Christchurch Women's Hospital, where they were due to begin work on the roof. The workers say they were told by Goleman that the tests had come back positive later that same afternoon and were asked to bring in any clothing that may have been contaminated. Goleman employees Jeff Richards and his partner, Petra Doner, both handed in their resignation on April 15, furious they were "put in danger without choice". Richards, an industrial abseiler who worked on the site, believes Goleman downplayed the risk of exposure to asbestos for the workers, hospital staff and patients and handled the situation "very poorly". He said workers were not formally told about the asbestos until the site had been shut down and that they were not given any warning of the potential danger or any advice or extra protective equipment by Goleman after the positive test results. Richards and fellow colleagues Liam Milner and Neil Silcock said they walked through corridors "past patients in hospital beds", and used the same elevators as doctors, nurses and the public during the week the work continued at the site. "The gear we were wearing and carrying was potentially covered in asbestos and there is a good chance those people were exposed to it that we walked past in the hospital," Richards said. "It's a massive public health issue." Goleman general manager Luke Goleman disputed his employees' claims and said the firm "took action the moment we found there has been the slightest risk of asbestos". Goleman changed the work methodology to protect staff. Clothing samples taken from the workers for testing have all returned free of any contamination, he said. He believed Goleman handled the situation well. "Goleman acted on all information as it came to hand and were proactive in the initial testing of the roofing material to assure the safety of our staff." CDHB chief executive David Meates was made aware of the situation only on Friday morning, after Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove informed him. Four Goleman employees (Richards, Doner, Milner and Silcock) provided Cosgrove with written statements and a copy of the tests results at his mobile office in Rangiora on April 29. "These are some very serious allegations. We're talking about patients, staff and Goleman workers being exposed to potentially contaminated material," Cosgrove said. Meates said he was confident CDHB staff acted "promptly and appropriately" when they were first alerted to the possibility of asbestos being present in the roofing material. "I would like to stress that at no time has there been any concerns for patient or staff safety." A CDHB spokeswoman said last night there she would find out if the workers had had access to hospital wards. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Russia, Zimbabwe Pick Up Fibro Baton from Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------- PSYCHE -- MAY 6 Kathleen Ruff, writing for The Toronto Star, reported that in February last year, an Italian court sentenced two asbestos industrialists to 16 years in prison for criminal conduct in having for years covered up the hazards of asbestos and failed to implement safety measures. According to the report, as a result of this coverup, thousands of workers and nearby residents of their Eternit asbestos-cement factory at Casale, Italy, died painful deaths from asbestos- related diseases. And the death toll at Casale continues to rise. Yet the asbestos industry is fighting to carry on this same deadly coverup today. To date, Canada has been the industry's chief political ally in achieving this goal. But this is about to change. At the UN Rotterdam Convention conference in Geneva, asbestos lobbyists will be working to defeat the recommendation of the convention's expert scientific committee to put chrysotile asbestos on the convention's list of hazardous substances, the report said. The convention does not ban trade in hazardous substances; it simply requires that countries act responsibly and obtain prior informed consent before shipping a listed hazardous substance to another country. This allows developing countries -- where asbestos and most hazardous substances are shipped nowadays -- to be informed of the dangers. They thus have the right to refuse the product or, at least, have a better chance of protecting their population from harm. This will be the fourth time that the recommendation to list chrysotile asbestos as hazardous will be presented to the UN conference. Chrysotile asbestos represents 95 per cent of all asbestos used over the past century. The scientific consensus is clear that all forms of asbestos cause deadly diseases. Other forms of asbestos are already on the convention's list but not chrysotile asbestos, representing 100 per cent of the global asbestos trade today. At previous conferences, Canada played the role of saboteur-in- chief, refusing to allow chrysotile asbestos to be put on the list. Even though chrysotile asbestos is listed as a hazardous substance under Canadian law, Canada maintained that, once it left Canadian shores (as virtually all of it did because Canadians did not want asbestos in their homes and schools), it should no longer be treated as a hazardous substance. At the last conference in 2011, when, finally, consensus had been reached to list chrysotile asbestos, Canada alone refused consent, single-handedly blocking the listing. The Harper government has stated that it will not block the listing at the upcoming conference. But this turnaround is not because the government supports the convention's mandate of health protection. Instead, it is for totally cynical reasons. Harper's Quebec lieutenant, Christian Paradis -- a longtime ally of the Quebec asbestos industry -- explained that, since the new Parti Quebecois government has refused to subsidize the bankrupt Quebec asbestos industry, thus causing its shutdown, there would be no point in Canada blocking the listing of chrysotile asbestos. Canada's message to the world is clear and sordid: if you can make money from exporting a hazardous substance, then oppose safety requirements, as they might damage profits. If you have no vested interest, then don't bother to oppose. If other countries follow Canada's example, the convention becomes worthless. Canada does not even intend to support the listing of chrysotile asbestos. Instead, it will maintain a cowardly, ambiguous silence. Russia, the world's biggest asbestos exporter, will take over Canada's role of sabotaging the convention, the report said. Of the 1 million tons of asbestos exported in 2011, Russia exported 750,000. Russia, therefore, has a big financial interest in the continued uncontrolled export of asbestos and continued coverup of its hazards. Russia will be attending for the first time as a party to the convention. It has indicated that it intends to use its new status to prevent chrysotile asbestos from being put on the hazardous substance list. In Russia, with a population of 141 million people, there is not a single scientist or a single scientific organization that opposes the government's pro-asbestos policy. Or, at any rate, there is not a single scientist or scientific body that dares to do so publicly. Zimbabwe also will be attending as a party for the first time and also plans to oppose the listing. Zimbabwe wants to reopen its asbestos mines and resume asbestos exports. Safety measures are not on its wish list. Canada's heartless asbestos legacy lives on, inherited by Russia and Zimbabwe. Many will die painful, unnecessary deaths as a result. We have a lot to answer for, the report said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Taint Rotto Holiday ------------------------------------------------ Tayissa Barone, writing for The West Australian, reported that when little Annabel Utting returned from her fossick around Rottnest Island's Geordie Bay, her parents did not expect to find asbestos among her collected treasures. "She had no idea," the six-year-old's mother Jacquie told the news agency."She had these prized possessions she was really pleased to find and we were horrified to see one was what looked like asbestos." According to the report, Mrs Utting said her daughter's find dampened an enjoyable holiday with her family of five, including Annabel's sisters Emily, 9, and Louisa, 4. "It's made me really anxious about letting my children frolic around and do what kids do, which is explore and pick up shells and things," she further told the news agency. "If there's a danger of them picking up asbestos, it ruins the family holiday." Annabel said she did not know what the light coloured object was but thought she should show her father David, who alerted the Rottnest Island Authority, the report related. "I thought it was a rock and I wasn't sure what it was so I brought it up to my dad," she said. Regular visitors to Rottnest, the Uttings said the experience had not turned them off their "idyllic" island but they expected the authority to clean the area thoroughly, according to the report. Contractors collected the piece, described as 10cm by 5cm wide and took it for testing. They also made a sweep of surrounding units and found what appeared to be other small pieces. An RIA spokeswoman said rain or ground disturbance could uncover old material and it had strict guidelines. Asbestos roofs on the island were replaced in 2005. "All asbestos roof material has been removed and a risk register documents any known remaining materials," the spokeswoman said. "Where appropriate, units containing asbestos have a warning notice. Asbestos in a stable condition is not dangerous to health." An avid explorer and collector, Annabel said she was not deterred from her pastime. "Hopefully it's not there any more," she said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Church Faces GBP5,000 Fine After Fibro Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Smith-Dawkins, writing for Nottingham Post, reported that a church must find GBP5,000 to remove asbestos found in its cellar -- and is in desperate need of money to pay for the work. According to the report, St John's Church in Nottingham Road, Hucknall, was found to have asbestos in bad condition under the main church -- which can be dangerous to human health. During the usual five-year inspection of St John's the church architect recommended in his report that an asbestos check be undertaken, the report said. Surveyors were then called in and discovered the asbestos in the cellar, although the main church is completely safe to use, the report added. The church must now find GBP5,000 after being told to remove it as soon as possible, according to the report. Church vicar Reverend David Ford, said: "GBP5,000 is an enormous hit to the church. We do not have the kind of reserve funds that can accommodate for these types of things. "We have to increase our fund-raising and it means other things can't happen now." Since the discovery of asbestos, church workers have had to wear protective clothing to go down to the cellar if they need to turn the boiler on -- and all equipment and storage in the basement has now been removed, the report related. Mr Ford said that the church, which costs around GBP700 to run a week, is already stretched for money. He said that the annual Spring Fair, to be held at the church on Saturday, May 11, would help to raise some of the money needed for the work. Mr Ford said: "We do appreciate all the help and support we get from people in Hucknall. We are keen for local people to come along to the spring fair." The spring fair will feature a variety of stalls selling home-made produce, gifts, clothes books and cards. A raffle and game stalls will also be set up. People wanting to hold a stall are to set up at 9am, before the event is opened to the public from noon to 3pm. The cost of a table is GBP5 and can be booked on 0115 963 3490. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Funds Set to Pay GBP300MM to Victims of Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------------- Miles Costello, writing for The Times, reported that thousands of sufferers of an asbestos-related cancer appear set to receive compensation under a scheme expected to be unveiled by the Government. According to the report, a plan to help those affected by mesothelioma to receive faster access to compensation is likely to be detailed in the Queen's Speech. Under the plan, an annual levy on specialist insurers of about GBP35 million will effectively establish a compensation fund, the report related. This is expected to run for the next 40 years and to lead to 3,000 mesothelioma sufferers receiving more than GBP300 million over the next decade. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meso Victims Get 2.2% Compensation Hike -------------------------------------------------------- Londonderry Sentinel reported that the amount of compensation payable to asbestos victims or their dependants has increased by 2.2 per cent. According to the report, the maximum that can be paid from April 1, 2013 is just over GBP83,330 for a person aged 37 or under. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l Pressure Over Fibro Yielding Results ----------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Singh, writing for The Age, reported that about 2 million tonnes of asbestos is produced each year, almost all of which is chrysotile, the last type of this deadly substance to be traded without international regulation. According to the report, at a meeting for an obscurely named international treaty, this could change -- or vital safeguards could be scuttled by irresponsible nations. That Russia has become party to the convention in order to wreck it is reprehensible, the report related. The report further related that from May 7-10, parties to the United Nations Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade will gather in Geneva for their sixth conference. The convention, according to the report, is the main way the world monitors and regulates the trade of chemicals that are hazardous to people and the environment. Once a chemical is listed in an annex to the convention, exporters are required to advise importing countries of the hazardous nature of the substance being traded so that importers can make informed decisions about whether to allow it in. The report said there was a time when asbestos was freely traded, with suppliers happy to try to keep up with demand for the miracle material. Australia was at the forefront of the global asbestos industry, exporting asbestos and products manufactured using it until mining was banned in 1983. Domestically, asbestos "fibro" cement sheeting dominated the Australian construction industry until the late 1980s. As the true cost of asbestos became clear, campaigns by Australian unions, doctors and the public eventually convinced the government to wind down the industry. Asbestos was banned in Australia in 2003. Tragically, its legacy remains. Not only was it the cause of Australia's worst industrial disaster at the Wittenoom mine but it still results in about 700 Australian deaths each year from asbestos-related disease, a figure that is expect to rise until at least 2020. Australia notified other countries of its final ban in 2003, triggering discussion within the Rotterdam convention to list chrysotile. At each conference since, Australia has strongly supported the international regulation of chrysotile, based on a determination to protect the rest of the world from repeating our mistakes. Outside these meetings, Australia has made direct representations on the issue, particularly to Canada and Russia. Asbestos exports go almost exclusively to developing countries, such as India and Vietnam. Most developed nations, including exporters, have banned asbestos or introduced strict regulations on its domestic use. But in developing countries, asbestos retains the allure it once held for postwar Australia. Worse, the pace and poor safety standards of construction in the developing world almost guarantees that the deadly effects of asbestos are spread widely during construction. Asbestos exposure is not only a lethal occupational hazard, it is an ever-present danger of life in asbestos-flooded communities. Objections to the listing of asbestos have been raised since international discussions began. For the past decade, the principal opponent was Canada, then home to the largest asbestos mine in the world. In September 2012, the Parti Quebecois won the Quebec election on a platform of withdrawing a government loan that was keeping the Jeffrey asbestos mine alive. For the first time, Canada has pledged not to veto chrysotile's inclusion. Its abstention is a blow to the chrysotile lobby and creates significant momentum before next week's meeting. Since this decision, India and Brazil, which have previously objected to chrysotile's listing, will follow Canada's lead and abstain from voting. Russia now has the questionable distinction of being the world's largest asbestos exporter. President Vladimir Putin has indicated that Russia will veto the listing of chrysotile asbestos in its first conference as a voting member. Putin is known for living dangerously but such recklessness about the lives of thousands across the developing world stretches even his macho persona. That Russia has become party to the convention in order to wreck it is reprehensible. It also places Russia in the company of Zimbabwe, another first- time voter at this week's meeting. After closing its asbestos mines years ago, Zimbabwe is experiencing a flight of capital to its booming asbestos production, much of which flows from Russia. Many in the Zimbabwean government are deeply connected to the industry, and have pursued an agenda in government and the media to deliberately conceal the health effects of asbestos. Zimbabwean objections to regulating the trade of chrysotile are a continuation of the deception and sectional interests that has been the rule in their domestic politics. Australia is leading the world in responding to the legacy of asbestos. The Gillard government has introduced legislation to establish a national asbestos safety and eradication agency as we seek to avoid the threatened "third wave" of asbestos-related disease. International regulation of this industry is inevitable: the only question is whether it will come in time to prevent a global pandemic. Lisa Singh is a Labor senator for Tasmania. As a minister in the state government, she introduced a whole-of-government asbestos policy. She is also the founder of the Asbestos Free Tasmania Foundation, a support organisation for asbestos disease sufferers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro is a Time Bomb ------------------------------------- Emma Judd, writing for The News, reported that it's a silent killer. A ticking time bomb in your chest that hides its timer and doesn't even let you hear the ticking as it winds down. Until, one day, you might get a little short of breath while walking up a hill. You might feel a little bit tired all the time, but dismiss it as a side effect of getting older. Except that's not what happened. Take Mavis Nye, who lives in Kent. For just six months, between 45 and 50 years ago, she washed the overalls her husband wore when he went to work at the dockyard in Chatham, according to the report. Nothing wrong with that. It was the 60s, and that's what happened. But the trouble was his overalls were covered with asbestos fibres, and as Mavis washed them, she breathed them in -- invisible fibres that are so small they travel straight down into the lungs. And there they wait, silent killers, waiting to strike. 'For years I've been talking about ladies getting asbestos-related diseases from washing their husband's overalls,' Chris Ward, who runs asbestos training on behalf of his company, Havant-based Award Health and Safety, told the news agency. 'But I actually met Mavis. 'She and her husband Ray have been married for 51 years. They went on holiday together and Mavis found she was getting short of breath. 'She went to have some tests when she got back, and they ended up draining all this liquid out of her lungs. 'They tested it and found she had mesothelioma, and gave her three months to live. 'But that was five years ago and she's still here.' There is no such thing as safe asbestos. Some people would have you believe that so-called white asbestos won't kill you, and instead it's the nasty brown and blue asbestos that will. It's not true. While white asbestos may be slightly less nasty than the brown and blue stuff, it will cause just the same cancer if it is inhaled. So what is asbestos? Chris says it is found naturally in rock. The fibres are extracted and then mixed with other things, like concrete. 'Asbestos is wonderful stuff,' Chris says confusingly. 'More than 3,000 products contain asbestos, but most people just think of it as being in the garage roof, or in their ceiling tiles. 'But we used to use it in all sorts of things, like in concrete to make it stronger. 'Or in pipe lagging because of its insulation properties. 'We even used to coat car parts with it, and make fire blankets with it because it's flame retardant. 'The Romans used to weave it into napkins, then to clean the napkins they'd chuck them on the fire. The blood and food would burn off, but the napkin itself would be fine.' But therein lies the problem. Brown and blue asbestos was outlawed in this country in the 1980s. White asbestos followed suit in 1999. Every building in Portsmouth, including the Guildhall, pictured, is, in Chris's words: riddled with the stuff. In fact, he says the only iconic structures not to have asbestos in them in Portsmouth is probably the Spinnaker Tower and the new Mary Rose Museum. 'It's in your home,' he said. 'If you knock through a wall, chances are your whole house is contaminated with asbestos fibres. 'If you had a builder do it, they should have considered that before they carried out the work, but in reality they don't. 'You could be sitting on your sofa, and it could be covered in asbestos fibres. 'What about schools? The maintenance people might go around drilling into walls and ceilings, releasing asbestos into the atmosphere. 'In the last 10 years in the UK 228 teachers have died from asbestos-related diseases. 'In the US, figures show that for every one teacher who died, nine pupils have also died.' Luckily, getting rid of the fibres is easy. All you need to do is call any company who will do an asbestos air test, which costs GBP71 and will give you an asbestos fibre count. If there is asbestos, the company will perform an environmental clean, which removes the fibres. They'll do another air test to confirm everything is safe again. Chris's aim is to see every school maintenance person, every builder and handyman, business people, landlords and others fully aware of the dangers of asbestos. He is a founder member of the Independent Asbestos Training Providers (AITP) organisation, which seeks to raise awareness of the its dangers, and how we are surrounded by it in every day life. One of the things it is trying to do is persuade DIY firms like B&Q to carry leaflets warning of the dangers. The organisation also raises money for charities which help people like Mavis, who are trying to live with the disease. Chris said: 'It's not true that a single fibre will kill you. 'But we don't know how individual people will react to it. 'Mavis got mesothelioma from washing her husband's overalls for six months years ago. But Ray is fine. 'One gentleman I met, who was 71 at the time, was an apprentice and used to actually saw it up every day and then in the breaks he and his mates would throw balls of it around as if they were having a snowball fight, and he's as fit as a flea.' WHAT IS ASBESTOS AND HOW DO YOU GET RID OF IT? There are three types: brown, blue and white. Brown and blue asbestos are amphibole fibres, which means the fibres themselves are like needles. They're resistant to everything, including water, fire, electricity and sound. For that reason they are mostly used in ceiling tiles, artex, bath panels and have been sprayed on car parts. The fibres can only be seen under a powerful electron microscope, and are called brown and blue because of the hue they give off. Both brown and blue asbestos was banned in the UK in 1985. White asbestos, Chrysotile, is best for weaving because its fibres are curly. That's the fibre that's used in concrete, so will be what your garage roof is made of, will be hiding in your walls, and makes up the vast majority of asbestos found in the UK today. It was banned in 1999. So how do you get rid of asbestos? The white stuff is easy to get rid of, as you don't need to have a licence. However, any person who says they can get rid of it must have a certificate to say they are insured specifically for asbestos removal. The risk is, if they don't, the asbestos will just be dumped. However, for blue and brown asbestos it's more complicated. Firms taking that away have to have a licence from the Health and Safety Executive, and will need to remove the asbestos in controlled conditions to ensure there's no contamination. 'It's very hard and very expensive to get that licence,' said Chris. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builders Warned of Spot Fines ------------------------------------------------ Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe will seek approval from the ACT government to slap $5000 fines on builders who fail to dispose of asbestos properly, saying too many were risking the health of their workers and members of the public to avoid the time and cost of safe removal. According to the report, Mr McCabe lifted a prohibition notice on a home in Murray Crescent in Griffith after stopping work last week after the ACT Planning and Land Authority discovered uncontained bonded asbestos on the site. The report related that the authority made the discovery while checking on electrical issues at the site, where a house is being demolished for a renovation. When ACT Work Safe inspectors arrived they confirmed the site was contaminated and work was stopped immediately while a licensed asbestos assessor and removalist was called in, the report added. Mr McCabe said the story was not uncommon and there was a group of ACT builders that knowingly flouted the law rather than organise and pay for asbestos to be removed safely. The site was also subject to a stop-work order from ACTPLA. "Unfortunately this practice is far more common than we would like. We have explored education options and we have made it clear to the industry the seriousness of the situation, but a percentage of builders chooses not to do the right thing. So, now we need to look at enforcement," Mr McCabe said. In the Murray Crescent case, Mr McCabe noted there was no avenue for him to impose a fine under current regulations, but there was a potential for the regulator to prepare a case for court prosecution. "I think we need to look at substantial on-the-spot fines -- in the order of $5000 -- to provide a financial disincentive to these builders." Griffith resident and near neighbour Anne Forrest -- who is vice- president of the Inner South Community Council -- said she regularly walked down that street and had seen dust coming from the site over the weekend. "I think it is absolutely shocking to find out that a stop-work order had been placed on this site due to asbestos. It should be of enormous concern to the community." She was further concerned that removal processes were appropriate and were being followed up "to make sure the asbestos is actually disposed of in a safe manner." Mr McCabe said the amount of bonded asbestos and small amount of fibres from lagging around pipes presented a relatively low risk to the public. "But while it is a low risk, it has potentially extreme consequences. That's why we have rigorous requirements for handling asbestos correctly. "I also have particular concern for workers on site who come into direct contact with asbestos fibres." Mr McCabe said builders had a duty of care to their crew and it was their job to know whether asbestos was present in buildings -- particularly of the age and type of the Murray Crescent home. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns at Christchurch Hospital -------------------------------------------------------- Radio New Zealand News reported that industrial abseiling contractors have grave fears they have spread white asbestos through Christchurch Hospital. According to the report, the contractors were repairing the hospital's roof and says the company, Goleman, knew about the asbestos 10 days before the workers were told. A sample of the roof tested by Chemsafety on April 2 confirmed the presence of white asbestos but work continued on site until employees reiterated their concerns to the project manager, Fletcher, about 10 days later, the report added. Abseiler Liam Milner says Goleman handled the problem very badly. "Extremely poorly -- they got very defensive, didn't want to take any responsibility or own up to any mistakes being made. And then just basically harassed us and tried to make it go away and keep it under covers," the report added. The site was shut down by Fletcher on April 10, the report said. Goleman would not comment on what measures it took over the asbestos. Canterbury DHB chief executive David Meates said he is certain that staff and patients have not been exposed to the health hazard. "We are absolutely confident that there has been no risk of exposure. There are some access areas that the contractors have been going out and those are the only likely areas there could have been any possible traces." But another contractor, Neil Silcock, said workers were given swipe cards allowing them wide access to the hospital. He said he worked on the site for about two weeks and during that time was in frequent contact with staff and patients. Mr Silcock said he is concerned that he has unknowingly spread contaminated dust via his clothes and equipment through the hospital. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guelph Child Care Centre Shut Down Due to Fibro ---------------------------------------------------------------- CTV Kitchener reported that for the second time in two years, the Willowdale Child Care Centre in Guelph's west end has been shut down due to asbestos concerns. The asbestos was discovered peeking out from behind a baseboard, the report said. Parents were notified of the shutdown over the weekend and informed that they would have to find alternative arrangements for their children. Cleaning up the asbestos is expected to take about a week. "We found vermiculite insulation that traditionally has some asbestos in it," Mario Petricevic, the City of Guelph's manager of building maintenance, told the news agency. "We're not sure what the concentration is here." The same situation occurred at the Willow Road facility in December 2011 and resulted in the building being shut down for nearly a year while the daycare operated from a temporary location, the report related. Jennifer Bloomberg, whose three-year-old daughter attends Willowdale, says she's become increasingly concerned about the facility. "I'm thinking health risks for kids, health risks for parents. It's not a safe environment," she tells CTV. Officials at the City of Guelph, which owns the building, says there is only a low risk to human health but they still don't want to take any chances. "We have to take every precaution," says Petricevic. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Torbay Roof Fire ------------------------------------------------ BBC News Devon reported that an elderly couple have been treated for shock after a roof fire at their bungalow in Torbay involving asbestos. According to the report, about a quarter of the roof and a section of the roof space were damaged after the fire broke in Primley Park, Paignton. The Environment Agency was called because of roof slates which were thought to contain a low-hazard form of asbestos, the fire service said. The cause of the fire was believed to be accidental, it added. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Raises NBN Fibro Fears --------------------------------------------- ABC News reported that there are calls for work to stop immediately on Tasmania's NBN roll-out amid concerns about the potential for exposure to asbestos. According to the report, the Electrical Trades Union's David Mier says he has visited 13 sites around Hobart, with some next to asbestos pits. He says only a handful of about 100 subcontractors at the sites had received mandatory asbestos safety training, the report related. "Not only are they exposing themselves to the potential of asbestos fibres, but the general public as well," he said. "Clearly I'd be suggesting the work should cease until they've been adequately trained." He says unwitting workers are digging up asbestos-lined telephone pits. "Potentially it can put lives at risk, the workforce and the general public," he said. "I'll be writing a chronology of events and a precis of what we've seen here and we'll be submitting that to Conroy and NBN Co and we'll be asking questions: why aren't their obligations being fulfilled?" The agency responsible for the safety of workers installing the NBN admits there are issues surrounding asbestos. In a statement, Comcare says it is intervening on specific sites. It says it is working with NBN Co to improve current systems, including around asbestos awareness training. NBN Co released a statement saying it is investigating the claims. Its contractor Visionstream says its workers have all received training in asbestos awareness and handling. Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has been contacted for comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafeBC Seeks Tougher Penalty v. Contractor --------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Hoekstra, writing for The Vancouver Sun, reported that WorkSafeBC will ask the court for stronger action against a Lower Mainland asbestos removal contractor that could result in rare jail time for exposing workers to health risks. According to the report, B.C's workplace safety agency filed an application in B.C. Supreme Court on April 26 for a hearing this month that asks a judge to find Mike Singh, son Shawn Singh and company Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd. in "contempt of court" for ignoring a 2012 court order to stop exposing employees to asbestos. Last year, another asbestos contractor who repeatedly flouted the rules was jailed for 60 days for contempt of court, the report said. WorkSafeBC cannot take away a company's right to operate, so instead uses a combination of education, orders and fines to encourage compliance with worker safety laws, the report related. In September 2012, as a "last resort," WorkSafeBC obtained a B.C. Supreme Court order against Mike and Shawn Singh, Seattle Environmental and an earlier Singh company, Skylite Building Maintenance Ltd., calling on them not to expose people to asbestos. It was the first step in setting up a contempt-of-court charge. At the end of last month, in nearly 900 pages of affidavits from WorkSafeBC occupational safety officers and supporting documents filed in court, the safety agency argues the Singhs and Seattle Environmental have breached the earlier court order. In the seven months since the court order was issued, the Singhs and Seattle Environmental have been in breach of rules to protect workers from exposure to asbestos 51 times, according to the WorkSafeBC documents filed in court. WorkSafeBC declined to comment directly on the contempt-of-court request. "I can tell you that this type of court action is relatively rare," WorkSafeBC spokeswoman Donna Freeman said in an email. "We have sought court injunctions against employers in the past, and contempt of court findings once before," she noted. Asbestos has largely been cleaned up in institutional and industrial buildings in British Columbia, but remains a health risk in homes that are being bulldozed or renovated. It's of particular concern in the Lower Mainland, where older homes are being torn down to put up condos or bigger, more expensive houses. Mike Singh says he has done nothing wrong, is being treated unfairly and repeated his earlier claim that WorkSafeBC is discriminating against him because he is Indo-Canadian. He noted his latest company, Seattle Environmental, has been slapped with a $60,000 fine. His fines now total $340,000. "We are going to fight this," said Singh, noting he has retained a lawyer to address the WorkSafeBC contempt-of-court petition. Singh's two companies -- Skylite Building Maintenance and Seattle Environmental -- now have had nearly 290 asbestos-related orders written against them. By the summer of 2012, 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. WorkSafeBC inspectors say that the Singh's companies -- Skylite and Seattle Environmental -- have issued "clearance" certificates before demolition when there was still asbestos material in the homes. The companies were also not properly removing asbestos materials from houses, says the safety agency. Just weeks after the September 2012 court order calling on the Singhs to stop exposing people to asbestos, a WorkSafeBC inspection at a North Vancouver home found textured ceiling material that contained asbestos, even though Seattle Environmental had issued a letter that the home was clear of asbestos, according to court documents. In WorkSafeBC's only other contempt-of-court proceeding, asbestos- removal contractor Arthur Moore was handed a 60-day jail sentence for repeatedly ignoring a B.C. Supreme Court order to cease exposing unsuspecting employees to asbestos contamination. Moore hired people as young as 14 years of age to remove asbestos- impregnated drywall without providing them with any form of protective clothing. Asbestos remains the single largest occupational killer in B.C., responsible for the deaths of 512 workers between 2002 and 2011, according to WorkSafeBC figures. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gateshead Factory Worker in Fibro Cash Pay-out --------------------------------------------------------------- ChronicleLive reported that a former factory worker has won a battle for compensation after being diagnosed with terminal asbestos-related cancer. According to the report, Gerald MacEwan, who now lives in Gateshead, was exposed to the toxic fibres while working at Rolls Royce's Hillington plant, in Scotland, in 1964. The building was undergoing repair work but Gerald said staff were not warned or given protective masks, the report said. Last year, at the age of 66, Gerald was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos exposure. Specialist lawyers at Irwin Mitchell issued High Court proceedings after the company denied responsibility. Now they have secured an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed sum from Rolls- Royce Group PLC. Gerald, who has five children and 11 grandchildren, said: ""I was absolutely distraught to learn that I have mesothelioma. The cancer has made me very tired all the time and I just don't feel like going out and walking as much as we used to. It has disrupted life for my family." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Matoaka Couple Name 69 Defendants in PI Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia's Legal Journal, reported that a Matoaka couple has named 69 defendants in a case claiming asbestos exposure caused lung injuries. According to the report, David Leroy Estes was diagnosed with asbestosis and pleural plaques on Oct. 25, 2011, according to a complaint filed April 22 in Kanawha Circuit Court. Estes claims he smoked one-half pack of cigarettes per day from approximately 1960 until 2000, but then quit. The 69 defendants exposed Estes to asbestos and/or asbestos- containing products during his employment as a laborer, machinist and maintenance supervisor from 1959 until 2006, according to the suit. Estes claims 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. Certain defendants are also being sued as premises owners and as Estes' employers for deliberate intent/intentional tort, according to the suit. Estes and his wife, Salvajean J. Estes, are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. They are being represented by James A. McKowen of James F. Humphreys & Associates. The case has been assigned to a visiting judge. The 69 defendants include 3M Company; 4520 Corporation Inc.; A.W. Chesterton Company; Aurora Pump Company; Bechtel Corporation; Borg-Warner Corporation; Brand Insulations Inc.; Buffalo Pumps Inc.; BW/IP Inc.; and CBS Corporation. Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-767 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kentucky Couple Name 56 Defendants in PI Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that an Ashland, Ky., couple are suing 56 companies they claim are responsible for a mesothelioma diagnosis. According to the report, on Jan. 7, Jimmie Elliott Epling Sr. was diagnosed with mesothelioma, according to a complaint filed April 22 in Kanawha Circuit Court. Epling claims he smoked less than one-half pack of cigarettes per day from 1963 until 1993, but then quit. The defendants exposed Epling to asbestos and/or asbestos- containing products during his employment as an orderly, machinist and operator from 1952 until 2000, according to the suit. Epling is suing the defendants for negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn. Certain defendants are also being sued as premises owners and as Epling's employers for deliberate intent/intentional tort, according to the suit. Epling and his wife, Ernestine Epling, are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved. They are being represented by James A. McKowen of James F. Humphreys & Associates. The case has been assigned to a visiting judge. The 56 defendants named in the suit include 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Amdura Corporation; Bucyrus International Inc.; Buffalo Pumps Inc.; CBS Corporation; Caterpillar Inc.; Clark Equipment Company; Certainteed Corporation; and Cleaver Brooks Company Inc. Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-768 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oldham Pensioner Wins Battle for Pay-out --------------------------------------------------------- Helen Korn, writing for Oldham Evening Chronicle, reported that an Oldham pensioner exposed to asbestos 50 years ago says he is "absolutely delighted" to win more than GBP15,000 in compensation. According to the report, Ken Partridge (84) appealed via the Chronicle in 2011 for former colleagues to help his fight. The former joiner, from Shaw, developed asbestosis -- caused by inhaled asbestos dust -- due to work at Newroyd Mills from 1963- 65. After the appeal was featured, his solicitor was able to find the evidence needed to settle his claim. "I worked at Newroyd Mills, following my service in the Army at the end of the 1940s," he said. "Back in those days we didn't know just how dangerous asbestos was." Former colleagues of Mr Partridge contacted his solicitor to compile evidence to confirm asbestos had been common in his work environment. With that evidence, Lesley Mynett negotiated a settlement with the company's insurer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Separate Coal Tar & Fibro Claims Rejected ----------------------------------------------------------------- Harris Martin Publishing reported that a New York appellate court has affirmed a trial court order keeping claims arising out of asbestos and coal tar exposure together, ruling that the defendants have not proven they would be prejudiced by trying the claims jointly. According to the report, in the May 3 two-page opinion, the 4th Judicial Department of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, further found that several arguments raised by the defendants in their efforts to sever the coal tar pitch exposure claims from the asbestos claims were not properly before the court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxins to be Removed from Former Creamery ---------------------------------------------------------- Stephen J. Pytak, writing for Standard Speaker, reported that America's Oldest Brewery has hired a contractor to clean asbestos and lead paint from the former ice cream factory, Richard J. "Dick" Yuengling, president of D.G. Yuengling & Son Inc., Pottsville, said May 6. According to the report, when Yuengling applied for the building permit for the $405,000 job May 6, Donald J. Chescavage, city code enforcement officer, was under the impression that Yuengling intended to demolish the 93-year-old blighted building on the northeast corner of Fifth and Mahantongo streets. The word "demolition" is typed right on the permit. When asked if the building would be demolished, however, Yuengling did not have a definite answer and did not want to discuss plans for the building, the report related. "We don't know what we're going to do with it yet. We don't have a plan yet. We have to clean it out. It's all we're doing," Yuengling said. "I guess that's the cost of the abatement, then," Chescavage said of the estimated cost on the permit. "That might just be for the abatement. If that $406,000 is for both the abatement and the demolition, that's a good deal," Craig S.L. Shields, CEO of Barefield Development Corp., said. Ultimately, Yuengling has permission to knock the building down, Chescavage said. On May 6, D.G. Yuengling & Son Inc., using the name DGY Limited Real Estate Partners, paid the City of Pottsville $4,100 for a permit. Its official name is an "Application for Building Permit or Alteration," according to the document. In the section "detailed description of proposed alteration," the following is listed: "Demolition -- Notify all utilities, cap sewer, upon completion of capping, call sewer authority to inspect before backfill (570) 622-0513, cleanout of sewer line must be visible above grade, proof of insurance, dumping receipts and asbestos abatement to be on file." AMC Enterprises, 147 W. Odgen St., Girardville, is the contractor in charge of the project, according to the permit. Two trucks were parked at the back of the former creamery Monday (May 6) afternoon, one from Forrester Environmental Inc., Bloomsburg, and another from Olde Good Things Architectural Antiques, Scranton. "We're cleaning it out. That's what we're doing right now," Yuengling said. The future of the Yuengling Creamery has been in question for years. It's been vacant for more than a decade, and Chescavage said he wondered about its fate in light of recent events. In April, Yuengling rejected a plan submitted in 2012 by Barefield Development Corp. to build 25 apartments for the elderly and a brew pub there. Meanwhile, the Greater Pottsville Area Sewer Authority has been putting pressure on Yuengling to install a sewage pretreatment facility for its brewery at 501 Mahantongo St., built in 1831. "We don't have a square foot to build a sewage treatment plant. That's why we haven't done anything," Yuengling said Monday. In 2000, the authority required the brewery to develop the system by October 2001. Thirteen years later, the situation hasn't been addressed to the authority's satisfaction. While the authority hasn't fined Yuengling, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency might, Timothy R. Yingling, executive director of the sewer authority, said previously. When asked, Yuengling would not say if pressure from the sewer authority is spurring his decision to work on the creamery building. Checavage said if the building isn't going to be rehabilitated, demolition is the best option. "If you can't repair it, the next best step is to have it removed if it's deteriorating as much as it is. The more the building deteriorates, the more the liability will become for the owner," Chescavage said. Yuengling said he had "no idea" how long the abatement would take. "The only timetable involved is how fast Yuengling and its contractor take to determine how bad the asbestos is in the building," Colleen Connolly, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection's Northeast Regional Office, said. Connolly outlined the steps Yuengling would have to take to remove asbestos from the property: * Hire a contractor and have the structure inspected for asbestos. * Notify DEP of findings by filling out a form, the Asbestos Abatement and Demolition/Renovation Notification, a requirement established in 1990 by DEP and EPA. "The form is filed in Harrisburg and then sent to regional offices," Connolly said. She said her office hasn't seen an application from Yuengling. * If an inspection cannot be completed for safety reasons, a Labor and Industry certified asbestos supervisor needs to be present during the demolition and waste removal process. * If friable asbestos or non-friable asbestos that has a likelihood of being rendered friable during the demolition process is present, the material would need to be removed prior to the demolition. "Friable asbestos-containing material" is as any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure, Connolly said. If it's detected, the contractor will have to submit a separate notification form to DEP prior to removal, Connolly said. Yuengling built the creamery, an ice cream factory in 1920, in response to Prohibition to make up for lost beer sales. The concrete and steel structure was built on the Fifth Street slope. The side bordering Mahantongo Street is two stories high and the side bordering West Norwegian is four stories high. It's a 40,000-square-foot building and has a parking lot behind it that would accommodate 20 vehicles, Shields said previously. The factory closed in 1985. Yuengling donated the property to St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church, Pottsville, and the church sold it to Smith & Smith Contracting, which used it for storage. Then, in the mid-1990s, Yuengling bought the building back for about $125,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed From Australia Aquatic Center ------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Gaskin, writing for The Border Mail, reported that asbestos is being removed from the Australian Institute of Sport Aquatic Centre at the same time the country's elite swimmers are using the centre. According to the report, renovations on the 28-year-old building have been taking place for a month and are expected to be completed by the end of the month. The report said several swimmers walked past the construction site on their way to training, although there is a barrier and signs clearly stating the removal of asbestos to prevent the public from coming into contact with it. Tests are being conducted daily to ensure no particles are in the air around the worksite. Comcare gave the green light for the removal of the asbestos after examining the details of the project. All staff at the Australian Sports Commission and the AIS were informed on April 8 of the decision. The asbestos is being removed from the outside of the building and replaced with compressed fibro. A spokesman for the ASC described the asbestos as "low-risk" and said all the required steps had been followed to ensure its safe removal. Those include: * An ACT-certified asbestos remover being retained to advise on and remove the bonded asbestos sheeting from the site. * Comcare approving the project approach and removal of asbestos. * An independent organisation conducting daily tests throughout the removal period to verify that no particulate asbestos are found in the air around the worksite. * The ASC occupational health and safety adviser being informed and agreeing to the process proposed and remaining on call should any OH&S issues arise. "An exclusion zone has been set up around the work area to cordon off access from the public and staff since the start of the work," the spokesman said. "Arrangements have been put in place to ensure that the removal process complied with applicable work, health and safety laws." The AIS pool will be closed to the public from May 19 to June 7 for maintenance work. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Bill to Make Victim Payouts Easier ---------------------------------------------------------------- Express & Star reported that the Queen has laid out plans to make it easier for victims of asbestos-related cancer to claim compensation. According to the report, newly diagnosed mesothelioma sufferers who developed the disease after being exposed at work will be able to receive help through the support scheme. The report said many sufferers are unable to claim compensation from employers because the disease takes many years to develop and the companies they worked for may no longer exist. Introducing the Mesothelioma Bill, the Queen's Speech said: "Legislation will be introduced to ensure sufferers of a certain asbestos-related cancer receive payments where no liable employer or insurer can be traced." Officials estimate that 3,500 victims who are not currently able to claim compensation will receive GBP355 million over the next 10 years. The money will come from a levy on insurers which provide employers' liability. Anyone diagnosed with mesothelioma after July 25 last year can make a claim. Mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of internal organs -- kills more than 1,800 people in the UK every year. It is estimated that 300 people a year receive no civil compensation because their employer's insurer cannot be traced. Asbestos is the most common cause of the disease. Most people diagnosed with mesothelioma will have been exposed to the mineral at some point in their life. Construction workers union Ucatt said the plans to introduce compensation for asbestos victims were "greatly watered down". Steve Murphy, general secretary of the union, said: "Deaths from asbestos are entirely preventable. For decades governments and employers knew the risks but chose to do nothing. It is disgraceful that even now they are trying wherever possible to deny workers compensation. "This watered-down scheme, which denies compensation to many victims and slashes compensation to those who qualify, demonstrates that the Conservatives are in the pocket of the insurance industry." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Democrats Oppose Bill Affecting Exposure Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reported that the state Assembly has passed a bill opponents say would slow asbestos-exposure lawsuits. According to the report, the measure would require plaintiffs to reveal how many businesses their attorneys plan to go after. Republican supporters say such a move would prevent lawyers from hiding multiple claims in hopes of maximizing awards. But opponents, including trial attorneys, say the measure is designed to slow cases down in the hopes plaintiffs will die and protect corporations from making payouts. Rep. Andre Jacque, of De Pere, says his proposal would inject transparency into asbestos claims. He says the bill would help judges and jurors see how many defendants may be at fault for one person's illness, ensuring they divvy up damages fairly, the report related. The bill passed on a 58-39 vote. It now heads to the Senate. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Bill Will Deny Payouts to Many ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Merrick, writing for The Northern Echo, reported that victims of asbestos exposure and their families will be denied compensation after a Government U-turn condemned as a "disgrace". According to the report, the Queen's Speech promised a Mesothelioma Bill to provide payouts to sufferers -- many now deceased -- unable to trace the employer who exposed them to the deadly dust. The move has long been demanded in the North-East, which, because of its long history of heavy industry, is a known blackspot for asbestos deaths, but a trade union immediately warned a GBP335m fund fell far short of what was originally promised, because: * Only victims of mesothelioma will be helped -- not people dead, or dying, from other asbestos-related conditions. * Only those diagnosed after July 2012 will receive payouts -- denying help to huge numbers of older cases. * Payouts will be only 70 per cent of the average compensation levels for asbestos, because of a complicated banding system. Steve Murphy, general secretary of UCATT, said: "Deaths from asbestos are entirely preventable. For decades, Governments and employers knew the risks but chose to do nothing. "It is disgraceful that even now they are trying wherever possible to deny workers compensation." Nearly 2,400 people, mostly men, die from mesothelioma every year -- of which 300 do not have an insurer, or that insurer cannot be traced, the report said. Asbestos was used in shipbuilding, construction and the automotive industry, exposing workers. Carpenters, joiners, plumbers and heating engineers are at particular risk. A 'standardised mortality ratio' (SMR) is used to identify blackspots, where a figure of 100 would be the expected number of deaths, given the age of the population. The figures are far, far higher in Hartlepool (240), Stockton-on- Tees (211), Sunderland (230), South Tyneside (317), Redcar and Cleveland (167) and Middlesbrough (140). Furthermore, at least 1,500 people die every year nationwide from other asbestos-linked conditions -- a figure that could reach 7,500, with better diagnosis, it is argued. UCATT seized on the revelation that major insurers met Lord Freud, the welfare minister, no fewer than 14 times to discuss the Bill, over two years. Mr Murphy added: "This watered down scheme demonstrates that the Conservatives are in the pocket of the insurance industry." A proposal for a GBP400m fund -- mainly funded by insurers -- was put forward by Labour, but progress ground to a halt after the Coalition came to power. Under the original plan, payouts were promised for all those with fatal asbestos-related conditions with no insurer -- not simply mesothelioma cases. It takes an average of 40 years for inhalation of asbestos dust to cause cancers, which means the records of many insurance policies to protect workers have disappeared. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Sonoma State University Offices --------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Guth, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a student publication at Sonoma State University reports that traces of deadly asbestos dust have been found in at least one building on the sprawling campus in Rohnert Park, California, prompting officials to advise faculty members not to disturb the dust lest they create a health hazard. The article in the Sonoma State Star explains that friable asbestos was found in floor and ceiling tiles in Stevenson Hall, which houses the offices of the school's Sociology Department. The hall was built in 1965 during an era in which building materials often contained asbestos. The material was used because of its exemplary fire-resistant qualities and because adding it to products such as cement increased the durability and life-span of those products and made them stronger. Unfortunately, it was later revealed that asbestos was a carcinogen, causing such cancers as mesothelioma, which most often attacks the lining of the lungs. The situation at Sonoma State came to light after faculty members in Stevenson Hall contacted Craig Dawson, director of energy and environmental at the university, expressing their concern. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) was called in to investigate. Since that time, emergency cleaning crews have been sent in to address the dust in the offices at Stevenson Hall, but faculty members say a lot of dust remains. "In recent weeks, the university has applied a sealant to the floor tiles of some faculty offices . . . however, the university has not taken steps to replace ceiling tiles, since they are so extensive in this building," said Noel Byrne, professor of sociology. "[The university] notes that (unlike floor tiles) ceiling tiles are not disturbed by the day use of the building. Replacement would be very expensive. Some faculty believes that the university is placing faculty, students and staff at risk by not properly addressing this issue," Byrne adds, noting that the process for confirming the extent of the asbestos contamination has taken weeks, prompting further concern about asbestos exposure. "I want to know if my office is toxic. I have been in here for years, and am concerned for my own health," said Peter Phillips, associate professor of sociology. "I hold the high levels of administration responsible for this, by having faculty members exposed to this for years." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transnet To Dump Fibro Near Northern Cape Town --------------------------------------------------------------- News.24 reported that plans by Transnet to dump asbestos into two borrow pits near De Aar, in the Northern Cape, are horrifying residents. Transnet had to remove asbestos from train yards to prevent possible health problems, Volksblad reported. The plan was to dump 520,000 tons of asbestos, from nine yards, into two grooves and seal them. According to the report, residents felt the asbestos could affect people, livestock, and wildlife such as rare bird species. Legal requirements Transnet spokesperson Mike Asefovitz told the newspaper it was following the legal requirements to the letter. However, De Aar residents' association chairperson Charel Marais said many questions remained unanswered. "The area is some 300 metres from a municipal boundary. There are not houses there, but in future it could become a problem," he was quoted as saying. Marais said there were strong winds in the area and that two wind power plants were planned for the town. "They cannot guarantee us that asbestos fibre would not be blown into the air," he said. Volksblad reported that residents were also not convinced that a membrane at the bottom of the grooves would hold forever and stop it from ending up in the underground dolomite formations, contaminating ground water and eventually drinking water. Residents reportedly suggested that the asbestos be dumped elsewhere, in old asbestos mines which had to be rehabilitated anyway. Asefovitz said all groups had been consulted in the process. Residents had two weeks to file their objections. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lebanon Businessman Sentenced for Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Patrick, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reported that a businessman who improperly removed asbestos from a site in Washington Park was fined $3,000 and sentenced on May 9 to five months behind bars and three months of house arrest for violating the Clean Air Act, prosecutors said. According to the report, Franklin "Al" Bieri, 54, bought the seven-acre Emerson Electric Facility site, and in April 2010 used untrained workers who improperly removed building materials that contained asbestos, prosecutors said. The workers failed to take steps to prevent the release of asbestos and failed to label the waste so that it would be properly disposed of, they said, and Bieri failed to notify the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency about the work. "This well-heeled businessman tried to save a few bucks by sending in untrained and improperly protected people, then had them dispose of this dangerous material improperly, exposing unsuspecting landfill workers," said U.S. Attorney Steve Wigginton in a statement, the report said. "This conduct is breathtaking, literally." U.S. District Judge David Herndon called it "a profoundly serious crime" and said Bieri put "people's lives on the line," prosecutors said, the report related. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims Ex-Labourer's Life ------------------------------------------------ Jenny Moody, writing for Burton Mail, reported that a pensioner died from asbestos-related cancer more than 50 years after working as a building labourer, an inquest has heard. According to the report, Peter Gill died at Rider House Nursing Home in Stapenhill Road, Stapenhill, on November 28 after battling mesothelioma. The 81-year-old's inquest, held at Burton Town Hall, heard he had worked in many jobs during his lifetime but would have been exposed to asbestos while acting as a building labourer for a company called Robinson's during the 1950s and 1960s, the report said. Consultant pathologist Dr Peter Acland told the inquest that Mr Gill was found to have mesothelioma on the lining of his lungs and thickening of the lining. In his report, Dr Acland said he found malignant cells in his pleura, which is a cavity providing a closed space within which the lungs had grown. However, he did not see any signs of asbestos bodies in his lungs. Dr Acland said: "There was no clear evidence of asbestos but it is mesothelioma which is almost always linked to exposure to asbestos. "Also we are aware that he worked for a firm where asbestos was a problem. "There was a chest infection which I think was the final straw which caused his death." South Staffordshire coroner Andrew Haigh said Mr Gill started to feel ill in 2012 and there was concern it could be mesothelioma. He said: "Just about all cases of mesothelioma are linked to asbestos and there is no cure but it did give him time to consider where he had been exposed to the substance. "The main exposure to asbestos was on one of his jobs as a building labourer for Robinson's between the 1950s and 60s. "At that time, the risks were not recognised and the time between exposure and the onset of cancer is delayed. "The pathologist found no indication of asbestos but Dr Acland is satisfied it was mesothelioma that killed him." Mr Haigh ruled that Mr Gill suffered a work-related death and passed on his sincere condolences to his family. He added: "It is a horrible condition which often arises years after exposure to asbestos." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bracklesham Holiday Park Link to Meso Death ------------------------------------------------------------ Chichester Observer reported that a heartbroken widow is appealing to her husband's former colleagues to help her battle for justice. According to the report, David Fry died in June 2011 aged 68, less than five months after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by inhaling asbestos dust. David's wife Vivienne is appealing to his co-workers at Gibsons Holiday Park in Bracklesham Bay, which was devastated by a large fire in the 1970s, as she believes they may hold vital information about his exposure to asbestos. Mr Fry worked on the redevelopment of the site, and was employed as catering manager. But his initial role was to help restore the kitchens, so he worked as a general labourer in 1976 with the contractors Stirlands. "When he was diagnosed with mesothelioma we were in complete shock and disbelief as we were told it was an illness associated more with the construction rather than leisure industry," she said. "But David could vividly recall what a dusty job the gutting of Gibsons was and it was the only time in his life he worked as a labourer. He was never warned of the dangers of asbestos or given any protective clothing by Stirlands." Satpal Singh, an industrial disease expert, said: "Sadly the nature of asbestos exposure means the symptoms take years to develop and in almost all cases it is aggressive and fatal," he said. Mrs Fry, from Ilfracombe, Devon, said two years after his death: "I still struggle to accept the fact he has gone. "We were looking forward to a long and happy retirement together but we never got the chance to enjoy that. We have two grandchildren and David is clearly missed. "David died because of something he was exposed to at work through no fault of his own and as the country gathers to mark Workers' Memorial Day at the weekend, I hope it helps trigger people's memories about asbestos at Gibsons and they get in touch." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nations Agree to New Ban on Flame Retardant ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reported that a summit on chemicals and hazardous wastes ended on May 10 with an agreement to globally phase out a widely used flame retardant and to accept stricter requirements for disclosing information about exports of four other chemicals. But participants fell short in their efforts to require more information and consent among nations trading in a construction material, Chrysotile asbestos, and a formulation of the powerful herbicide, Paraquat, despite support from most of the 169 nations represented at the two-week U.N. summit. According to the report, Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, said the negotiations by delegates to three major environmental treaties reflected awareness that many of the 100,000 chemicals used by industry or agriculture, or sold in commercial products, still haven't been tested for their effects on people and nature. "If you just take the fact that 100,000 of these are out there, you can imagine that for many countries, particularly for developing countries and least-developed countries, this presents an enormous problem simply being able to ascertain, to regulate and to manage the inflow of these products. That is why international cooperation is essential," Steiner said. "Some of these compounds are dangerous, some of them are lethal, whether to human health, to the environment," he added. "Therefore, as evidence becomes available, the conventions have tried to provide the mechanisms for the phasing out of these substances, or for introducing the principle of prior informed consent, so countries are made aware that products they import contain substances that are deemed to be of high risk, or of great danger to environment and human health." Officials in charge of three key international treaties said delegates agreed by consensus to a gradual phase out of the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane, or HBCD, which is used in building insulation, furniture, vehicles and electronics. The phase out would begin a little more than a year from now, but there also would be specific exemptions for five years on some construction uses in buildings. The chemical will be added to the Stockholm Convention, which now regulates 22 toxic substances such as DDT and PCBs. The treaty takes aim at chemicals that can travel long distances in the environment and don't break down easily. Delegates also agreed to tougher controls on disclosure of information about exports of an insecticide, Azinphos-methyl; two flame retardants, PentaBDE and OctaBDE; and a fabric protector, PFOS. But efforts to include two other substances -- Chrysotile asbestos and a Paraquat formulation -- were blocked by a few nations. India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe did not support adding Chrysotile asbestos; Guatemala and India were opposed to adding the Paraquat formulation. The Paraquat formulation already is banned in more than 40 countries, including Switzerland, the home country of agrochemicals giant Syngenta, the main manufacturer of it. Those actions fell under the Rotterdam Convention, which regulates information about the export and import of 43 hazardous chemicals. Some 1,885 delegates and observers participated in the first joint meeting of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions that govern chemicals and hazardous waste and are each headquartered in Geneva. The conference culminated in a high-level meeting among about 80 ministers. The Basel Convention regulates the export and import of hazardous waste. Participants in that treaty tried to finalize e-waste guidelines, but they were not adopted because some developed countries and the electronics industry would not agree without adding loopholes to allow repairable electronic waste to be exempted, said advocacy group IPEN, a global network of more than 700 public interest non-governmental organizations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Warning After Derbyshire Factory Fire ------------------------------------------------------------ Channel 4 News reported that thick black plumes of smoke were billowing over the Derbyshire town after a reported explosion on May 10. According to the report, the explosion was understood to have occurred at the former site of the chocolate company Thortons. There are no reported injuries. However residents have been advised to stay indoors and not pick up any debris amid fears that the site could have contained asbestos. Health and safety inspectors are examining the site. The incident also led to a county cricket match between Derbyshire and Lancashire being abandoned. Derbyshire county cricket club chairman Chris Grant told the Derby Telegraph: "I was watching the game when I spotted the fire and it became clear the building had exploded. "I ensured all of the players and the umpires got off the pitch straight away and got back inside. All of a sudden people started to move their cars very quickly, in case it started to get worse." Dramatic scenes The explosion is thought to have been triggered by some old gas canisters that exploded in the derelict factory and set the building alight. A helicopter, paramedics and two fire engines arrived at the scene and have since dispersed. Eyewitness Gary Parsons told Channel 4 News that he saw flames billowing as high as the building. "We could see flames as high as the building and thought the worst when paramedics appeared to be the first people at the scene. "A helicopter flew over the area instructing people to stay indoors. Thankfully it has started to rain now which has helped to extinguish a lot of the fire." People on the school run could neither see where they were going nor breathe." A spokesperson for East Midlands Ambulance Service said a paramedic was passing the scene in a fast response car at the time and stopped to attend. The ambulance service added that no-one had been taken to hospital. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Disappointed in UN Rotterdam Convention List ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), which combines education, advocacy, and community as the leading U.S. organization serving as the voice of asbestos victims, is outraged after the 2013 United Nations Rotterdam Convention failed to reach consensus to add chrysotile asbestos to the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) list of hazardous substances. All six types of asbestos are carcinogenic, but chrysotile is the only type of asbestos not included in the list. The Convention does not prohibit trade of the listed substances, but requires exporters to establish protocol to inform purchasers about the hazards related to the substances. Of the 143 countries attending the conference, seven countries -- India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe -- opposed the listing. "Asbestos-related diseases cause great human suffering. Death from difficult-to-treat cancers and suffocation caused by asbestosis are terrible ways to die," said Arthur L. Frank MD, Ph.D., Professor of Public Health and Pulmonary Medicine, Drexel University. "The callous disregard of some countries for educating workers condemns many to unnecessary and painful deaths." "Chrysotile asbestos is recognized by every leading world scientific body as a cause of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, as have all other forms of commercially used asbestos that are currently listed on the PIC List," said Richard Lemen, Ph.D., MSPH, Assistant Surgeon General (ret.), Rear Admiral, USPHS (ret.); Adjunct Professor, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University. "But because chrysotile asbestos remains the only type of asbestos commercially exploited, those countries having a financial stake in its continued use have placed profit and greed over the protection of the public's health, in order to promote this carcinogenic product. Today, a few countries have again blocked chrysotile's listing on the PIC by claiming it is not hazardous and can be used safely. It is a farce for them to suggest continued 'controlled use' since by blocking its listing, the consumer is never informed of chrysotile's hazardous nature. Thus, the pandemic of asbestos-induced diseases that the world is currently experiencing will continue to grow as thousands more uninformed users of this cancerous material will face disease and death in their future. The action of these few countries represents a callous disregard for human dignity and life." "It is reprehensible that India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe used propaganda and misinformation to block chrysotile asbestos from being added to the Rotterdam Convention's list of hazardous substances," said Linda Reinstein, Co-Founder and President of ADAO. "Each day, 300 innocent people die from preventable asbestos-caused diseases, yet the asbestos industry, including the Russian Chrysotile Association, continues to promote the 'safe use' of chrysotile asbestos. Russia annually mines an estimated 1,000,000 tons of asbestos and is responsible for half of the world's chrysotile asbestos production. ADAO is a proud supporter of the 2013 Rotterdam Convention Alliance (ROCA) Position Paper, as well as Association of Asbestos Victims Families (AFeVA) President Romana Blasotti Pavesi's global asbestos victims solidarity letter, which was endorsed by 55 asbestos victims' organizations. Asbestos victims around the world will not be silenced by thugs and criminals profiting from the deadly toxic trade. Instead, we will turn our grief, pain, and anger into action as we continue global educational and advocacy initiatives to collaboratively ensure chrysotile asbestos will be added to the PIC List at the 2015 Rotterdam Convention." Although the chrysotile asbestos industry argues that chrysotile asbestos is safe, the World Health Organization (WHO) states that all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans and may lead to mesothelioma and lung, larynx, and ovarian cancer. WHO estimates that 107,000 workers die every year from asbestos-related lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. One in every three deaths from occupational cancer is caused by asbestos. About Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) was founded by asbestos victims and their families in 2004. ADAO seeks to give asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure. ADAO is an independent global organization dedicated to preventing asbestos-related diseases through education, advocacy, and community. For more information, visit www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter of Meso Victim Seeks Answers ------------------------------------------------------ LawFuel.com reported that the daughter of a Nottingham woman killed by an aggressive type of cancer is calling on anyone who used to work with her mother to come forward and help to answer questions about how she died. According to the report, Gladys May Trengove -- more commonly known as Pat -- passed away on 13 April 2012 at the age of 86 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal form of cancer most commonly associated with exposure to asbestos. A long-term resident of Sneinton, Pat was employed by the Sketchley Dry Cleaning Company in its Vernon Road premises during the 1960s, the report said. Her daughter Joan Smith has instructed specialist industrial disease solicitors, Thompsons, to seek information about how, where and when her mother might have been exposed to the deadly dust. Joan said: "My mum's diagnosis and death came as a total shock to our family. She was otherwise in really good health so who knows how long she would have been with us if she hadn't contracted mesothelioma. "To know that her death was potentially brought on prematurely due to asbestos is devastating. I'm determined to find out where she was exposed to it and hope that Nottingham residents will help me." Peter Magee, a senior serious injury solicitor at Thompsons said: "Those who knew Pat will remember her as a good natured woman with a smile for everyone. Today, we ask those people to help Pat's family to find answers. "We are in the process of trying to contact anyone who might have worked with Pat during her time at Sketchley Dry Cleaning in the Basford area of Nottingham between 1961 and 1968. If you or someone you know worked with Pat, please contact Peter on 0800 0 224 224 or by email on enquiries@thompsons.law.co.uk." "Thompsons Solicitors are experts in all personal injury matters. We will be able to advise you whether or not you have a valid claim for compensation. Our specialist asbestos solicitors and lawyers will be happy to talk you through the process of making a claim in plain English and will be happy to answer any questions or queries you may have. Telephone us now on 08000 224 224 or complete one of our online personal injury compensation claim forms." ASBESTOS UPDATE: JFK High School Reopens After Fibro Cleanup ------------------------------------------------------------ CTV News reported that John F. Kennedy High School will re-open to students one year after it was cleared out following the discovery of asbestos. According to the report, the 420 students will be able to see out the term at the Villeray building in St-Michel following the $2.8 million cleanup. Students from the JFK Business Centre will not return until the start of the next academic semester. JFK principal Joseph Marra has promised "a grand celebration" for May 15, which includes a pep rally and barbeque. "Everyone is relieved," Marra said. "We have been treated well here at Rosemont but it has been a crowded situation." The announcement comes one year after traces of asbestos were found in two ventilation rooms inside the facility. Students were moved to Rosemont High School for the past year following the asbestos discovery. ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Woodcock's Statement on UK Mesothelioma Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------ Annabel Tautou, writing for French Tribune, reported that it has been found that certain plans sketched to simplify people's claims have seen a mixed reaction. People affected by asbestos exposure had made claims. Plans were laid out by the Queen so as to ease asbestos-related cancer victims' difficulty in claiming compensation. According to the report, the country has realized one of the asbestos-related illness highest rates. Thus, Barrow campaigners, reportedly, were found keen to see the impact of the new legislation. As per the findings, the Mesothelioma Bill is aimed at helping claimants when their former employer's insurance company could not be traced. It has been estimated that if the bill passed, the same could help at least 3,500 victims of mesothelioma. John Woodcock, Barrow and Furness MP, said that the bill would be studied by him so as to check if the same had the potential to help people. He said the measure would help ensure progress towards a last resort fund made by John Hutton, while the horrific, life-shortening disease was being tackled by him in government. "This measure would build on the progress towards a fund of last resort made by John Hutton when he was tackling this horrific, life-shortening disease in government", Woodcock said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Substance" From Belper Explosion Probed --------------------------------------------------------- Derby Telegraph reported that a white material found in the area surrounding an explosion in Belper could be hazardous asbestos, Amber Valley Borough Council has said. According to the report, the news comes after police confirmed they were treating the fire and blasts at the former Thornton's factory, Derwent Street, as "deliberate". A statement from the council on substances distributed by the explosion says there is a suspicion that a "thicker grey/white" material is asbestos, "which is hazardous," the report related. It said: "In the interest of public safety, this material is being treated as asbestos until it can be determined exactly what it is." A joint investigation has been carried out by Derbyshire Police and Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service to ascertain the cause of the fire, the report added. Detective Sergeant Ryan Finnegan, said: "We are treating it as deliberate ignition. "The police and fire service have carried out an investigation and we are not ruling anything out. "It may be possible that aerosol cans may have been involved and caused the fire -- this is a possible line of inquiry." Belper's new county councillor, John Owen, said a team from specialist asbestos firm, BDS, was at the scene. They were asked to check the scene by Amber Valley Borough Council. Mr Owen said: "BDS said it was a serious fire and there was potential asbestos in the roof. "The position is that it isn't considered to be dangerous and no evacuations are necessary." Mr Owen said BDS told him threads of asbestos could have been in the building's roof. He said: "They are taking anything away that's the size of tennis balls or above." He said BDS had asked him to issue a warning that, if people find debris, they should not touch it. He said: "If people find anything they believe to be debris from the explosion, they should call BDS on 07973780179 and they will come and clear it up." Witnesses described hearing loud blasts for about five minutes as the fire took hold of the building. A massive plume of smoke billowed across the town and residents were warned to stay indoors amid fears asbestos had been released. Steve Meath, landlord of the Duke of Devonshire pub, in Bridge Street, told of scenes of panic and confusion as thick black smoke billowed across the road. The back of the pub's car park is less than the 100 metres from the site of the explosion. Mr Meath said: "People didn't know what was happening. "People ran up to top of the car park because they thought that was where the explosion had come from. "And outside in the street people were abandoning their cars because they couldn't get through the smoke -- it was that thick." He said it took between 10 and 15 minutes for the smoke to clear. There were reports of teenagers running from the scene. A police spokeswoman said the force had received reports of this but that the youngsters may not have been connected to the incident. The fire started at about 3.30pm when residents described hearing a number of loud blasts from the derelict building. Police closed nearby roads and the force helicopter was used to warn people to stay indoors while the fire was dealt with. The fire was out by 6.30pm. Joy Wagg, of Allestree, said she was leaving the car park behind Poundland in King Street, when thick acrid smoke covered the area. She said: "My car has ended up covered in lumps of black ash and people around me were covering their faces with scarves to prevent them inhaling smoke. "You couldn't see across the car park as we left and the police started to arrive and close off streets. It sounded as if fireworks were going off all the time at the scene of the fire ." Steven Silverman, who owns Frearsons toy shop, in Bridge Street, said he had been down Derwent Street to have a look. He said: "There was a popping sound and a smell of burning plastic everywhere. I would not have wanted to be downwind of the smoke at its height, because it was very black and thick." Laura Taylor, general manager of the nearby Drop Inn Youth Centre, also saw the fire. She was the victim of another fire at the centre last December. She said: "I'd pulled away from the Morrisons island with my children in the car and suddenly saw all of this thick, black smoke. "I thought: 'Oh my God, that's Derwent Street, so I started to think the worst. "I spun my car right around and that's when I realised we're on the opposite side of the street." Andy Armstrong, manager of Burchell Edwards estate agents, in Bridge Street, said: "I heard the explosion and then all of a sudden smelled a horrible smell, followed by all of the thick black smoke." Belper chartered surveyor Hugh Broadbent said: "This type of building will definitely have an asbestos roof and there may be chemicals inside." The derelict building, formerly part of the Thornton's chocolate factory site, was to bought as part of a redevelopment scheme by Tesco. But this year the supermarket giant posted poorer-than- expected profits and pulled out of 100 planned stores, including the one in Belper. A spokesman for Tesco said: "I can confirm that we own the property and we have agents on site working with the emergency services." Mr Owen said: "This site has been derelict for years and Belper cannot be left with a burnt-out shell of a building until Tesco feels it is economically viable to build on the site." Anyone with information on the fire is asked to call Derbyshire police on 101. Derbyshire County Cricket Club chairman Chris Grant was one of the first people to spot the fire. The club's second XI were playing Lancashire's second XI at the Belper Meadows Cricket Ground at the time. Mr Grant said: "I was probably the first person to realise what was going on. "I was watching the game when I spotted the fire and it became clear the building had exploded. "The warehouse just imploded in really thick black pungent smoke. "It just submerged the whole of the ground. It was incredible. "I ensured all of the players and the umpires got off the pitch straight away and got back inside. "There was a crowd of around 50 spectators from Belper Meadows Cricket Club and Derbyshire County Cricket Club. "All of a sudden people started to move their cars very quickly in case it started to get worse. "Players started running off the pitch in full kit." Play was immediately abandoned. He added: "This must be one of the first cricket matches abandoned because of a fire." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beatrice School Board Approves Abatement Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- Beatrice Daily Sun reported that the Beatrice Public Schools Board of Education approved an asbestos abatement bid and staff resignations at its regular monthly meeting on May 13. The board plans to take action on approval of asbestos abatement bid for Beatrice Middle School and elementary buildings, the report related. The district forecasted removing the asbestos as part of improvements planned for the summer in March. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Problem at Storage Buildings -------------------------------------------------------- John Pepin, writing for The Mining Journal, reported that customers of Second Street Storage at K.I. Sawyer will have to wait to get their boats, recreational vehicles and other items out of winter storage until professional consultants assess the full extent of a recently discovered asbestos problem. According to the report, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians owns buildings 421 and 422 at Sawyer -- structures each measuring roughly 40,000 square-feet -- where the presence of disrupted asbestos was confirmed May 1. "The tribe is doing everything it can to expedite this and make sure everyone is safe," Saulius Mikalonis, a Plunkett Cooney attorney representing the tribe from Bloomfield Hills, told the news agency. Mikalonis said the tribe had been leasing the buildings commercially -- which are located on 6 acres between avenues H and F -- since September 2010 to the Second Street temporary storage business. In February, the buildings were repossessed by the tribe after the owner fell into arrears on payments of rent and taxes. In April, tribal officials cut off locks and pushed open frozen doors to inspect the premises, the report related. A piece of pipe fitting tape suspected to contain asbestos -- later confirmed through testing -- was found on the floor in one of the buildings. "We don't know how this asbestos was removed," Mikalonis said. Tribal officials are operating under the assumption disturbed asbestos materials are in both storage buildings. "We don't know, but we have to assume it," Mikalonis said. A licensed consultant contracted by the tribe is expected to assess the extent of the asbestos problem within the next week or so. The findings will determine exactly what abatement measures will be prescribed and how long that process will take. Asbestos is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act as a hazardous air pollutant. Countless older buildings contain asbestos in their building materials. Undisturbed, the substance is not required to be disposed of. However, when major renovations are undertaken or when asbestos containing materials are exposed to the air that can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure steps are taken to remove those "friable" asbestos materials. The tribe is keeping the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality -- which addresses asbestos issues on behalf of the EPA -- apprised of the situation. The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration has also been notified. "We've talked to all the relevant officials," Mikalonis said. If the amount of disturbed asbestos present is significant or widespread, a specific sequence of steps to wet and dispose of the materials would be required. "It is a complicated, time consuming and expensive process," Mikalonis said. If the tribe does not properly remedy the situation, large fines could be imposed. Meanwhile, the boats, recreation vehicles and other items sitting in the storage facility cannot be removed until the asbestos problem is resolved and the buildings deemed safe to occupy. Mikalonis said the DEQ has been open to waiving a 30-day notification requirement -- if the asbestos remediation process is necessary -- to expedite starting the process as an emergency abatement. In addition to discovering the presence of friable asbestos, the tribe is dealing with additional problems at the storage facility. Civil proceedings between the tribe and Second Street Storage are continuing in Marquette County District Court, according to court officials. Absent logs or other pertinent documents, tribal officials have been unable to determine who owns many of the items housed in the storage facility. Mikalonis said he was not sure how much property has been stored in the buildings, but characterized the number as "significant." Tribal officials sent notices to some of the affected individuals Wednesday and were asking others to claim ownership by sending receipts, descriptions, license plate numbers and other identifying information to the tribe's insurance department in Sault Ste. Marie. A couple of weeks after the asbestos was found, inspection of the storage buildings revealed another, potentially related, issue. "We noticed there were copper wiring and pipes stripped from the building," Mikalonis said. Local law enforcement officials, including Marquette County Sheriff's deputies, are investigating the theft. Tribal officials don't think anyone has been in the buildings since last fall. Both of the structures were built in 1956 and used as hangars by the military when K.I. Sawyer was a U.S. Air Force base. The air base opened in 1956 and closed in 1995. The tribe bought the buildings in the year 2000. To claim items from the storage facility, write the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Insurance Department, 523 Ashmun Street, Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783. John Pepin can be reached at 906-228-2500, ext. 206. His email address is jpepin@miningjournal.net ********* 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 * * *